DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/26 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 4/13/26. Claim(s) none is/are amended, claim(s) 3 is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 1-2 and 5-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 4/13/26, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-2 and 5-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 8-11.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because in regards to Applicant' s arguments regarding the utilization of machine learning algorithms and the feedback loop, Applicant' s claims are similar to claim 2 of Example 47 which included receiving continuous training data, using the computer to discretize the continuous training data to generate input data, training the artificial neural network using the input data, and detecting anomalies using the trained artificial neural network; which represented mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), held that “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims improve the machine learning model similar to Desjardins is also not persuasive. Applicant’s claims are similar to claim 2 of Example 47 which included receiving continuous training data, using the computer to discretize the continuous training data to generate input data, training the artificial neural network using the input data, and detecting anomalies using the trained artificial neural network; which represented mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025), held that “patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101”. Similar to Recentive Analytics, Applicant’s limitations only claim the application of machine learning models and not an improvement to the models themselves. The claimed limitations do not meet the criteria or considerations as indicative of integration into a practical application. Therefore, the rejections of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claims Without Prior Art Rejections
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-20 do/does not have prior art rejections. The remaining rejections are 101 as noted below.
Closest prior art to the invention include
Gupta et al. (US 2018/0322442 A1) in view of Dervan et al. (US 2017/0054846 A1), Stackoverflow published February 24, 2017 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited), and Leung published November 10, 2020 (reference V on the Notice of References Cited) for claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-11, 12-14, 17-19, and 20, and
Gupta in view of Dervan, Stackoverflow, and Leung as applied to claim(s) 1 and 12 above and further in view of Battle (US 2021/0136225 A1) for claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16.
Leung (as well as most prior art) teaches that a first user answers a phone and the ringing stops for other users. Thus while not listed in Leung if two users answered near the same time (such that they both answered) the system would recognize two users answered and the second user would be hung up on.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to matching employees to customers.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 12-19 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 1-2, 5-11, and 20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 12: obtaining, from a customer, a request for service from an entity;
obtaining, from a user, a request for service from an entity;
obtaining context information of the request;
selecting, via a machine learning model, a dynamic target group of representatives from a set of representatives associated with the entity, based on the context information and a predetermined set of criteria;
routing the request simultaneously to agent devices associated with the dynamic target group of representatives;
determining that two or more of the agent devices are answered;
selecting a communication channel from a plurality of communication channels based on the request;
establishing a communication between the user and the two or more of the agent devices simultaneously via the communication channel,
storing the context information and the predetermined set of criteria, and the dynamic target group of representatives as historical request routing data, and updating the machine learning model based on the historical request routing data.
Claim(s) 1 and 20: same analysis as claim(s) 12.
Dependent claims 2, 5-11, and 13-19 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s): .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with matching employees to customers.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements unencompassed by the abstract idea include device, machine learning model (claim(s) 1, 12, 20), system comprising non-transitory memory and processor (claim(s) 1), non-transitory computer readable medium, processor (claim(s) 20), processor, device (claim 3), device (claim 7-8, 15-16).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using 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 MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0118]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0118]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JAMES WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights