DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/19/26 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Final Rejection of 1/13/26, Applicant, on 4/19/26, amended claims. Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Reasons for Overcoming Prior Art
The independent claims 1 and 11 overcome the prior art as the claim has a combination of limitations in addition to claim 1 of: (viii) creating a textual-summary of strengths and weaknesses of each coach in the plurality of coaches and a textual-summary of preferences of the agent by operating a Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the filtered coaching feedback data; (ix) normalizing to numerical values with Euclidean norm of the created textual-summary of strengths and weaknesses of each coach…; and (xii) calculating a correlational score for each coach in the plurality of coaches based on the respective calculated coach impact score and the respective calculated cosine similarity score, wherein the calculated correlational score of each coach indicates a level to which the calculated coach impact score and agent behavioral preferences are aligned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without reciting significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in MPEP 2106.03, the claim 1 is directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites–
“A … method for enhancing effectiveness of a coaching session of an agent by creating the coaching session based on a calculated coach impact score of coaches, in a contact center, said computerized-method comprising:
(i) receiving coaching feedback data via a coaching … from the agent after each coaching session that the agent has participated in, wherein the coaching feedback data is about the coaching session and a related coach;
(ii) receiving a request from a user, via a User … that is associated to the coaching …, to create a new coaching session to the agent for a selected focus area and related behaviors;
(iii) collecting the coaching feedback data that has been received from the agent for a plurality of coaching sessions that have been conducted during a preconfigured period, wherein the collected feedback data comprising for each coaching session at least one of:
(a) set of coaching ratings; and
(b) coaching comment, and
wherein each coaching session in the plurality of coaching sessions has been conducted by a different coach;
(iv) filtering bias from the coaching feedback data by removing bias therefrom to yield filtered coaching feedback data;
(v) operating… based on the filtered coaching feedback data, to yield an effective-feedback score an associated dynamic weightage, and a coaching effectiveness score for each coach for the selected focus area and related behavior during the preconfigured period;
(vi) calculating a coach impact score for each coach in the plurality of coaches by operating a coaching impact score module on the yielded effective-feedback score, the associated dynamic weightage, and the coaching effectiveness score of the coach; and
(vii) configuring … to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the calculated coach impact score of each coach in the plurality of coaches,
(viii) creating a textual-summary of strengths and weaknesses of each coach in the plurality of coaches and a textual-summary of preferences of the agent … on the filtered coaching feedback data;
(ix) normalizing to numerical values with Euclidean norm of the created textual-summary of strengths and weaknesses of each coach in the plurality of coaches to represent coach-vector and the created textual-summary of preferences of the agent to represent agent-vector;
(x) pairing the agent-vector with each coach-vector of the coach:
(xi) calculating a cosine similarity score for each pair of agent- vector and coach-vector;
(xii) calculating a correlational score for each coach in the plurality of coaches based on the respective calculated coach impact score and the respective calculated cosine similarity score, wherein the calculated correlational score of each coach indicates a level to which the calculated coach impact score and agent behavioral preferences are aligned
(xiii) … to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the correlational score, wherein the subset is displayed during creation of the new coaching session (part of the abstract idea, of starting coaching sessions for those workers who it will provide the greatest impact. see e.g. [0115-0116, 0217] “new coaching session for the agent may be created with a coach having highest coach impact score by operating a workflow service, such as workflow MS 120b. [0116] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a new coach-to-coach training session may be created to a selected preconfigured number of coaches having lowest impact score to improve their coach impact score for the received focus area and related behaviors. [0217] FIG. 16 is an example of a User Interface (UI) 1600 to create a new coaching session based on a calculated coach impact score, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention.” There is not an improvement to the GUI, rather, it is still just displaying the results), and
(xiv) creating by operating a workflow …, the new coaching session for the agent with a coach having highest correlational score by operating a workflow …, (this was from Claim 5 and claim 6 - which further narrows the abstract idea by performing a number of mathematical relationships while computing scores for coaches and also narrows the teaching part of certain methods of organizing human activity identified above.),
wherein the subset of coaches includes a preconfigured number of coaches having the highest calculated coach impact score and the highest calculated correlational score, and
wherein the calculated coach impact score of each coach indicates an effectiveness-level of the coach to the new coaching session.”
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing relationships between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and a mathematical relationships [calculating various scores, weighting, ranking]. Here, we have a series of steps for collecting feedback from people being educated how to do their job (e.g. agent employees at a call center) who are being coached (e.g. coaches/supervisors, etc) and a series of steps for how to compute scores for the coaches based on the feedback that can be “coaching ratings” or “coaching comments”, where the various scoring is considered an explicit mathematical relationship. The new limitations are from previous - Claim 5 and claim 6 - which further narrows the abstract idea by performing a number of mathematical relationships while computing scores for coaches and also narrows the teaching part of certain methods of organizing human activity identified above. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - MPEP 2106.04 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements that are:
“A computerized-method for enhancing effectiveness of a coaching session of an agent by creating the coaching session based on a calculated coach impact score of coaches, in a contact center, said computerized-method comprising:
(i) receiving coaching feedback data via a coaching web application from the agent after each coaching session that the agent has participated in, wherein the coaching feedback data is about the coaching session and a related coach;
(ii) receiving a request from a user, via a User Interface (UI) that is associated to the coaching web application, to create a new coaching session to the agent for a selected focus area and related behaviors;
…
(v) operating a coach evaluation module based on the filtered coaching feedback data, to yield an effective-feedback score an associated dynamic weightage, and a coaching effectiveness score for each coach for the selected focus area and related behavior during the preconfigured period;
…
(vii) configuring the UI that is associated to the coaching application to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the calculated coach impact score of each coach in the plurality of coaches...”;
(viii) creating a textual-summary of strengths and weaknesses of each coach… and a textual-summary of preferences of the agent by “operating a Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)” on the filtered coaching feedback data; … to selectively display… coaching session with highest correlation score by operating a workflow service (viewed as just a program of the computer);
(xiii) configuring the UI that is associated to the coaching application to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the correlational score, wherein the subset is displayed during creation of the new coaching session, and
(xiv) creating by operating a workflow service, the new coaching session for the agent with a coach having highest correlational score by operating a workflow service,
See updated July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, Example 48, claim 1 – series of mathematical calculations for “deep learning” in natural language processing. At step 2a, prong two and step 2B, the preamble of “computer” in combination with “operating a Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)” is similar to updated July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, Example 48, claim 1; that is “mere instructions to implement abstract idea on a computer at MPEP 2106.05f); see also MPEP 2106.05h “field of use” for combination of computer, “computer application”, module, named computer program of “workflow service”, and “Generative Artificial Intelligence” generating a textual summary.”
(MPEP 2106.05f applies – limitations in claim involve a computer, , and is considered “apply it” [the abstract idea] on a computer; merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea”) and having a display showing output from “generative artificial intelligence”, with “workflow service” and “coaching web application” is “field of use” MPEP 2106.05h. The specification supports the view that “by generative artificial intelligence” is just “apply it by a computer.” See Applicant’s [0204-0206] as published- According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, the filtered coaching comments, and ratings, i.e., filtered coaching feedback data may be provided to Generative AI with LLM to determine strengths and weaknesses of a coach. The Generative AI may create a textual summary of strengths and weaknesses of the coach based on the following prompt-text.”
The specification also supports that the “selectively display” is just displaying results from the abstract idea of coaching and scoring of people. See e.g. [0127] as published and FIG. 10 – “A UI that is associated to the coaching application, such as coaching web application 110b, may be configured to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the correlational score.”
The claim naming that the computer has a “workflow service” so that it can give the correlational scores on what will have the most impact in improving a human’s performance does not make the claim eligible. Absent are technical details regarding anything related to the “workflow service”; starting another “coaching session,” is viewed as repeating the Abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B in MPEP 2106.05 - The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements when viewed individually or in combination of a processor/computer, “coaching web application”, “coach evaluation module,” “operating a Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI),” a “user interface”, “a workflow service” to execute operations are MPEP 2106.05(f) (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h). The coaching “web application” delivers the information to the user; the “coach evaluation module” and “operating a Generative Artificial intelligence” output the coaching recommendations to the user; the “workflow service” is part of just getting the information from a computer as best understood. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, “(i) receiving coaching feedback data via a coaching web application” is a conventional computer function (See MPEP 2106.05d(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321).
In addition, “(xiv) creating by operating a workflow service, the new coaching session for the agent with a coach having highest correlational score by operating a workflow service” is admitted to be Prior Art – See FIG. 1(a) (“Prior art”) where “workflow MS” (Microservice), and where [0074-0075] further state “A workflow service accepts a workflow configuration for creating workflows for a coaching session and workflow details to create the workflow in the workflow MS 120a. A decision worker service 125a is executing the steps of the created workflow to manage the entire journey of a coaching session through different states. The journey of coaching sessions is managed through different states, by a service 150a which primarily comprises of the decision worker service 125a and the activity worker service 130a, for example the service 150a may be provided by Simple Workflow Service (SWF) of on-demand cloud computing services provider, such as Amazon® Web Services (AWS).” Even in the non-prior art Figure, 1B, paragraph [0090] as published states “the service 155b may be provided by Simple Workflow Service (SWF) of on-demand cloud computing services provider, such as Amazon® Web Services (AWS).” In addition, Chalana US 2014/0025425 also shows evidence of conventionality for having a server/service give workflow data ([0026] “an exemplary bulk workflow server 200 has been described that generally conforms to conventional general purpose computing devices, an bulk workflow server 200 may be any of a great number of devices capable of communicating with the network 150, for example, a personal computer,”) and McGauley (US 2014/0006078) also shows evidence of conventionality for having a server/service give workflow data ([0025] “ During execution of the workflow by a computer, a conventional workflow management application running on the computer can receive feedback such as when a particular functional block or task has been completed by a user. Upon completion of a particular task, the conventional workflow management application can initiate execution of a next task or functional block in the workflow. In this manner, conventional workflow management applications enable sequential execution of multiple different tasks.”)
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. The claim is not patent eligible. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent claim 11 is directed to a system at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one, 2a, prong 2, and step 2b. In addition, it recites “one or more processors”, which at step 2a, prong 2 and step 2B also is considered “MPEP 2106.05f” apply it [abstract idea] on a computer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 12 narrow the abstract idea having a user acknowledge by a person. Claims 3 and 13 narrow the abstract idea by naming different biases that will be removed.
Claims 4 and 14 narrow the abstract idea by ranking or showing coach with highest impact (i.e. most to improve upon).
Claims 7 and 15 narrow the abstract idea by having further mathematical relationships to help prioritize learning/teaching for people.
Claims 8-10, 16-18 narrow the abstract idea by having further mathematical relationships to help prioritize learning/teaching for people. The recitations of “database” and “data store” and computer components here are considered part of “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” MPEP 2106.05(f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h).
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite “mathematical relationships”, nor do they recite “any method of organizing human activity”, not do they recite a mental process and are instead directed to a “specific computer-implemented process”. Remarks, page 1-2. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the revised 101 rejection, the claim is directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing relationships between people – including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and a mathematical relationships [calculating various scores, weighting, ranking]. The claim is a series of steps for a person coaching another person, such as an employee or call agent. A number of mathematical relationships are also in the claims – e.g. (v) effective-feedback score an associated dynamic weightage, and a coaching effectiveness score for each coach; (vi) calculating a coach impact score… (ix) normalizing to numerical values with Euclidean norm of the created textual-summary of strengths and weaknesses of each coach… (xi) calculating a cosine similar score… (xii) calculating a correlational score for each coach. The arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant then argues there is a practical application as there is “concrete operation of the coaching-management system itself” and creation by a “workflow service associated with the coaching web application” for a “new coaching session.” Remarks, page 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, just giving the user the coaching recommendations itself does not make the claim eligible. This is akin to just “having a computer” perform a process. Unfortunately, that is not sufficient after the Alice Decision. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (Apply it [abstract idea] on a computer – does not make the claim eligible. Second, the revised rejection addresses “workflow service” and “coaching web application” – as just having a “workflow service” is admitted as Prior Art in FIG. 1A, and conventional evidence is also provided for the “workflow service” provided at this high level of generality. The claim naming that the computer has a “workflow service” so that it can give the coach correlational scores on what will have the most impact in improving their performance does not make the claim eligible.
Applicants then argue that “configuring the UI… to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the correlational score, wherein the subset is displayed during creation of the new coaching session” is a practical application due to “ongoing computerized” creation workflow, and “coordinated operation of application components” in the coaching-management system. Remarks, page 2. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s specification demonstrates how this is part of the abstract idea, of starting coaching sessions for those workers who it will provide the greatest impact. see e.g. [0115-0116, 0217] “new coaching session for the agent may be created with a coach having highest coach impact score by operating a workflow service, such as workflow MS 120b. [0116] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a new coach-to-coach training session may be created to a selected preconfigured number of coaches having lowest impact score to improve their coach impact score for the received focus area and related behaviors. [0217] FIG. 16 is an example of a User Interface (UI) 1600 to create a new coaching session based on a calculated coach impact score, in accordance with some embodiments of the present invention.” There is not an improvement to the GUI, rather, it is still just displaying the results. Even in combination, having a UI, a computer with an application for communicating with a server, is viewed here as being “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h).
Applicant then argues that the practical application is from the UI being “selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the correlational score wherein the subset is displayed during creation of the new coaching session, and (xiv) creating by operating a workflow service associated with the coaching web application, the new coaching session for the agent with a coach having highest correlational score by operating a workflow service.” Remarks, page 2-3. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the claim 1 rejection, the “display”, selectively display, and computer are part of the “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h). The specification supports the view that “by generative artificial intelligence” is just “apply it by a computer.” See Applicant’s [0204-0206] as published- According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, the filtered coaching comments, and ratings, i.e., filtered coaching feedback data may be provided to Generative AI with LLM to determine strengths and weaknesses of a coach. The Generative AI may create a textual summary of strengths and weaknesses of the coach based on the following prompt-text.” The specification also supports that the “selectively display” is just displaying results from the abstract idea of coaching and scoring of people. See e.g. [0127] as published and FIG. 10 – “A UI that is associated to the coaching application, such as coaching web application 110b, may be configured to selectively display a subset of the plurality of coaches based on the correlational score.” See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13. In contrast, an eligible example is in MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) “vi. a method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising the steps of: receiving a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, determining the amount of use of each icon by using a processor to track the amount of memory allocated to the application associated with the icon over a period of time, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position in the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use.” The “operating a workflow service” is viewed as part of just operating the computer to perform the abstract idea and is still rejected under the “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and “field of use” (MPEP 2106.05h).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IVAN R GOLDBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-7949. The examiner can normally be reached 830AM - 430PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IVAN R GOLDBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights