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 . The following is a Final Office action. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are currently pending and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 have been fully considered but are moot and/or non-persuasive.
Applicant argues under McRo and Enfish the claims are not an abstract idea and the claims are not a mental process label nor certain methods of organizing human activity.
Examiner responds in McRo “ [i]t was the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks...”. In the instant claims, the rules pertaining to customer service management and routing to a customer based on a routing score. The claims are still a business process, and the additional elements are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
With respect to Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between technological or computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. Here, with respect to the claimed computing elements the Specification generically describes the technical environment (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 0028-0042) and does not disclose any related technical improvements. Indeed, the Federal Circuit applied this distinction in Enfish because the claims in Enfish focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out its basic functions of storing and retrieving data, and not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. Enfish, 822 F.3d 1335–36. As a result, Examiner maintains that the claimed elements reflect improvements in a business process associated with customer service management, and routing to a customer based on a routing score and do not reflect any improvements to the technology or technical field.
Examiner further notes a “field” is a “container” of information and a score can be generated for the field in the human mind, and the routing of a communication to an agent is part of customer service management and managing interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Applicant cites DDR and Bascom.
Examiner responds unlike the claims of DDR Holdings, which were identified as patent-eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” the pending claims do not address any technical problem or any problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Instead these claims address business problems associated with customer service management. Each of the additional elements are recited with high generality and are used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
The inventive concept described and claimed in Bascom is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” Contrary to this decision, the instant application’s claims merely recite generic computer elements by which the steps are executed, there is not a non-conventional arrangement of the computer elements, but instead a generic computer and networked environment merely applies the abstract idea. While Appellants might have improved a customer service management workflow, this improvement does not necessarily provide non-generic/non-conventional combination of elements.
Examiner further notes with respect to Step 2B, the computing elements in the claim are being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 8 and 15 includes limitations for routing based on rules including:
Receiving a communication
Analyzing the communication to determine a topic
Identifying a second user associated with the topic by:
Applying a weighting system by generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields in a profile of the second user...
Combining each generated subscore...
Comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user...
Routing the communication to the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of communication, the topic of the communication, and the generated routing score
The elements above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified elements recite an abstract idea relating to certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (customer service management); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – because the determining the topic and identifying a second user steps are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). As a result, claim 1 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2–4, 9-11, and 16-18 further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes and as a result, Claims 2–4, 9-11, and 16-18 is rejected for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1, 8, and 15. Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 , 8, and 15 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include computer, computing device, storage medium, instructions, processors. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
Claims 2–4, 9-11, and 16-18 do not include additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent 1, 8 and 15. As a result, Claims 2–4, 9-11, and 16-18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 8 and 15 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1, 8 and 15 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements include computer, computing device, storage medium, instructions, processors. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 8 and 15 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–4, 9-11, and 16-18 do not include additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent 1, 8 and 15. As a result, Claims 2–4, 9-11, and 16-18 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorny (2020/0151648) in view of Chishti (2014/0086404)
Regarding Claim 1, discloses: A computer-implemented method, comprising: (0020 – computer, processors, memory, instructions)
receiving, by a computing device, a communication sent from a first user; analyzing the communication to determine a topic of the communication;
(0023- customer may call the one or more service centers 140 to inquire about a particular topic, such as, for example, a password reset of a web-based email program. (topic category, subtopic) When one or more service centers 140 receives the customer's communication, a communication network 100 identifies the communication channels 402a-402n (FIG. 4) as being a voice communication channels 402a-402n 402a initiated by the telephone call, categorizes the topic of the telephone call (in this example, as a password reset request (topic category))
identifying a second user associated with the topic of the communication by
applying a weighting system by generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, wherein the plurality of fields includes a subtopic of the topic of the communication, an expertise of the second user, a workload of the second user, an experience level of the second user, and a status of the second user, ([0055] Because some of agent ranking factors 242 may be more important than others, when calculating the agent score, weights may be added to each of the agent ranking factors 242 which increase or decrease the importance of the points associated with the agent ranking factors to the overall sum of all points of agent ranking factors 242
0065, Table 7 - scoring module 218 calculates an agent skill score by assigning points and/or weights to particular data associated with the skill of the agent of one or more service centers 140 in handling tickets associated with a particular topic including, for example, a number of tickets worked by the agent for the topic, (workload) an average time to resolve tickets for the topic (an experience level), a customer satisfaction score for the topic...
[0085- After generating inferred customer data 254, administration module 210 may return to activity 504 and evaluate ticket for customer data 234 that includes the newly-added inferred customer data 254.....scoring module 218 calculates one or more agent scores based on at least one of one or more agent ranking factors 242. As described above, one or more agent ranking factors 242 may include, for example, age, race, religion, sex, highest level of education (different status for Table 5 category) annual income, a pleasantness score, tone of voice, a customer engagement score, a ticket completion speed, customer feedback score, a percentage of re-opened tickets (workload), knowledge of a topic (expertise), other demographics, a score calculated based on any one or more of the foregoing factors, and the like. One or more agents are scored based on their agent skill score for the topic of Jane Smith's telephone call (password reset of a web-based email program) (topic category and sub-topic) and their similarity in education level, age, and one or more other agent ranking factors 242, as described above.
combining each generated subscore to generate a routing score that is a rank identifying the second user when the routing score reaches a threshold routing score,
and comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user;
0069- assignment module 220 matches customers of one or more customer systems 130 with agents of one or service centers 140 based, at least in part, by calculating an agent score (routing score) based on points and/or weights associated with one or more agent ranking factors 242. Agents are ranked on a per topic basis. (compared topic to user’s profile)
0089-0091-... When channel interface module 212 determines that no agents are available that meet the minimum agent scores 230 (when routing score reaches threshold) at activity 522, assignment module 220 assigns the ticket to a pool of next available agents...
routing the communication to the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of communications, the topic of the communication, and the generated routing score [0072] ... ticket assignment system 110, through one or more modules, provides a communication network 100 for use by agents of one or more service centers 140 and which provides for efficiently assigning and resolving tickets from a single and/or central location while maintaining a high level of customer satisfaction.
0089- ... assignment module 220 assigns the ticket to the matched agent and the method ends.
0030 - the processing and routing of incoming tickets
Gorny does not explicitly state the workload is a “current workload.” Chishti in analogous art discloses this limitation [0118] 2. A weight may then be assigned to each agent equal to either the agent's estimated percentage of total number of calls received, e.g., the call count, for a time period, or the agent's estimated percentage of call handle time relative to a total time for calls handled by the call center during the time period for which the matching is being performed) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gorny’s weighing system to include Chishti’s current workload, helping a contact center optimize the routing of callers to agents (0074).
Regarding Claim 2, Gorny discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the communication to determine the topic of the communication includes analyzing text of the communication. (0023-When one or more service centers 140 receives the customer's communication, a communication network 100 identifies the communication channels 402a-402n (FIG. 4) as being a voice communication channels 402a-402n 402a initiated by the telephone call, categorizes the topic of the telephone call (in this example, as a password reset request) and generates agent scores 230 based on one or more agent ranking factors 242.
0042, 0051, 0084 – textual content (including, for example, a transcript))
Regarding Claim 3, Gorny discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein analyzing the text of the communication includes transcribing an audio portion of the communication. (0023-When one or more service centers 140 receives the customer's communication, a communication network 100 identifies the communication channels 402a-402n (FIG. 4) as being a voice communication channels 402a-402n 402a initiated by the telephone call, categorizes the topic of the telephone call (in this example, as a password reset request) and generates agent scores 230 based on one or more agent ranking factors 242.)
Regarding Claim 4, Gorny discloses: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the communication is routed automatically to the second user. . [0072] ... ticket assignment system 110, through one or more modules, provides a communication network 100 for use by agents of one or more service centers 140 and which provides for efficiently assigning and resolving tickets from a single and/or central location while maintaining a high level of customer satisfaction.
Claims 8-11 and 15-18 stand rejected based on the same citations and rationale as Claims 1-4, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
103
1176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623