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 .
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of 5/1/26, Applicant, on 8/3/26, amended claims. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 now recites “correlating each agent-customer interaction of the retrieved one or more agent-customer interactions with the retrieved customer-feedback record, by matching the first segment identifier and the first agent identifier of the customer-feedback record with the second segment identifier and the second agent identifier of the agent-customer interaction, to generate a set of correlated agent-customer interactions.” It is unclear how this is supported by the originally filed disclosure. While verbatim support is not needed, Examiner is not sure which portion of the disclosure supports this limitation. There is no recitation of “correlate” in the disclosure. There is one instance of “match” in [0038] as published – but it is not for matching segment identifiers and agent identifiers, but retrieving recordings that match a filter such as call duration, channel type. Applicant is welcome to explain what this limitation is referring to, how it is supported, amend the claim limitation, and/or cancel the claim limitation.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-21 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-21 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 an apparatus which is a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One - MPEP 2106.04 - The claim 1 recites–
“An apparatus for calibrating evaluator feedback relating to one or more agent-customer interactions based on corresponding customer feedback, which comprises … to implement operations comprising:
storing the customer feedback, which is provided via a customer questionnaire associated with an agent-customer interaction, in a customer-feedback record of a …, wherein the customer-feedback record comprises a first segment identifier, a first agent identifier, and feedback information;…;
retrieving:
(i) using a search application that queries a search index one or more agent-customer interactions satisfying one or more user-selected filter criteria defined in a calibration configuration object, each of the one or more agent-customer interactions including a second segment identifier and a second agent identifier (see claim 3 below for alternatives -one or more user-selected filter criteria comprise channel type, duration of interaction, customer scoring of interaction, customer sentiment during interaction); and
(ii) using a customer feedback application, the customer questionnaire associated with the second segment identifier and the second agent identifier of an agent-customer interaction included in the one or more agent-customer interactions, the customer questionnaire including the customer feedback in the customer-feedback record;
correlating each agent-customer interaction of the retrieved one or more agent-customer interactions with the retrieved customer-feedback record, by matching the first segment identifier and the first agent identifier of the customer-feedback record with the second segment identifier and the second agent identifier of the agent-customer interaction, to generate a set of correlated agent-customer interactions;
maintaining:
in an agent-priority data store, an agent-priority value for each agent of a plurality of agents;
in an evaluator-assignment data store, an evaluator-priority value for each evaluator of a plurality of evaluators;
for each agent-customer interaction of the set of correlated agent- customer interactions, until the agent-priority value of each agent indicates that no interaction segments remain to be distributed for the corresponding agent:
selecting a second agent identifier having a highest agent- priority value in the agent-priority data store;
selecting the agent-customer interaction, from the set of correlated agent-customer interactions, that includes the selected second agent identifier;
extracting customer-feedback questions from the customer questionnaire correlated with the selected agent-customer interaction;
transforming the extracted customer-feedback questions into evaluation criteria by merging the customer-feedback questions and generating a customer-feedback-derived evaluation criteria set;
dynamically generating an agent evaluation form for the selected agent-customer interaction from the customer-feedback-derived evaluation criteria set;
selecting, from the plurality of evaluators having a lowest evaluator-priority value in the evaluator-assignment data store, an evaluator identifier;
assigning the selected agent-customer interaction and the dynamically generated agent evaluation form to an evaluator associated with the selected evaluator identifier;
in response to the assigning, decrementing the agent-priority value for the selected second agent identifier in the agent-priority data store, and incrementing the evaluator-priority value for the selected evaluator identifier in the evaluator-assignment data store;
generating, in an evaluation-task assignment database, an evaluation-task record based on the selected agent-customer interaction, the decremented agent-priority value, and the incremented evaluator- priority value;
communicating, to the evaluator associated with the selected evaluator identifier, the dynamically generated agent evaluation form and one or more media streams of the selected agent-customer interaction;
visualizing, audibilizing, or both, …each accessible by the evaluator:
the one or more media streams of the selected agent-customer interaction; and
the dynamically generated agent evaluation form for the selected agent-customer interaction; and
receiving, from the evaluator, evaluator feedback via completion of the dynamically generated evaluation form communicated to the evaluator;
calculating a customer feedback variance score for the evaluator by comparing:
the evaluator feedback received via completion of the dynamically generated agent evaluation form-communicated to the evaluator; to
the customer feedback stored in the customer-feedback record corresponding to the first segment identifier and the first agent identifier that match the second segment identifier and the second agent identifier of the agent-customer interaction assigned to the evaluator.”
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 – we get feedback on employees/agents from customers and evaluate how the employee/agent is performing) and a mathematical relationships [calculating variance score by comparing two numbers, where a lower variance represents better effectiveness of evaluating agents/employees]. Here, we have a series of steps for using criteria (e.g. claim 3 – by customer scoring, chat/phone call, duration of interaction), to select agent-customer interactions, looking at the customer’s feedback in a questionnaire [e.g. are the customers satisfied?], generating an “agent evaluation form” based on the feedback (e.g. questions/content based on customer scoring for “comparing” at end of claim), communicating the form and a stream of interaction (which could just be written text or transcript from a “digital” channel type – see [0024] as published stating “digital” can be channel type for interaction) for selecting agent-customer interactions, then visualizing the media stream (e.g. the “digital” channel interaction, which can be a visual of the text of the chat), along with the generated evaluation form (to ask the same questions that were asked to the customer), and then calculating a customer feedback score by comparing the evaluator feedback and the customer feedback which is considered an explicit mathematical relationship; lower variance represents a better evaluation of the interaction with the customer. It appears the limitation rejected under 112a, “correlating each agent-customer interaction of agent-customer interactions with retrieved customer-feedback record” – narrows the abstract idea by having questions asked for customer-feedback used in the employee-evaluator form or template of questions for an evaluator/supervisor. The new limitations further add “calibration” configuration, which the background explains is the process for rating customer service. There also are a series of new limitations (page 3) related to prioritizing which evaluator has priority and is chosen next, which is narrowing of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, for following rules for task management. The new step at the bottom recites “transforming the extracted customer-feedback questions into evaluation criteria by merging the customer-feedback questions and generated a customer-feedback derived evaluation criteria set.” This is interpreted based on [0038] as published, one of only two places that recite “merging” – “The evaluation form-builder module 110 is responsible for merging all the valid and appropriate questions received from the customer feedback questionnaire and creating an evaluation form (at a step 161) which now contains all the questions laid out by the customer.” Examiner notes this not an additional element, but rather, just putting customer-feedback into the evaluation criteria. See MPEP 2106.05(c), “For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Examiner also notes “dynamically generating” has no support in the disclosure for “dynamically” and this is viewed as just being “by a computer” to generate an evaluation form. See MPEP 2106.05f - "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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:
An apparatus for calibrating evaluator feedback relating to one or more agent-customer interactions based on corresponding customer feedback, which comprises
“one or more non-transitory computer readable media and a plurality of instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable media and executable by one or more processors to implement operations comprising.”
storing the customer feedback, which is provided via a customer questionnaire associated with an agent-customer interaction, in a customer-feedback record of a customer feedback database, wherein the customer-feedback record comprises a first segment identifier, a first agent identifier, and feedback information;
querying one or more databases… for…;
communicating, to one or more user-selected evaluators, the generated agent evaluation form for the agent-customer interaction and one or more media streams of the agent-customer interaction;
retrieving:
(i) using a search application that queries a search index … defined in a calibration configuration object, each of the one or more agent-customer interactions including a second segment identifier and a second agent identifier;
(ii) using a customer feedback application, the customer questionnaire associated with the second segment identifier and the second agent identifier of an agent-customer interaction included in the one or more agent-customer interactions…
…
maintaining:
in an agent-priority data store, an agent-priority value for each agent of a plurality of agents;
in an evaluator-assignment data store, an evaluator-priority value for each evaluator of a plurality of evaluators;
…
visualizing, audibilizing, or both, “via one or more output devices,” each accessible by at least one of the one or more user-selected evaluators;
(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; “storing” customer feedback; “querying” databases; “communicating” to evaluators displaying text from a “digital channel” [0024 as published] interaction; data store, “applications”, and identifiers – individually and/or in combination is considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer” (MPEP 2106.05f) and having a display and a database queried [i.e. data storage] with identifiers and “applications” (software modules) is considered “field of use” MPEP 2106.05h. Examiner also notes “dynamically generating” (1st limitation page 4) has no support in the disclosure for “dynamically” and this is viewed as just being “by a computer” to generate an evaluation form. See MPEP 2106.05f - "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
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 of a processor/computer, computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions executed by the processor/computer, “applications,” identifiers, and “datastores” 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). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, the steps involving “storing” data then “querying one or more databases for…” is viewed as conventional functions at step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05d(II)(iv) - Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306).
The new step at the bottom of page 3 recites “transforming the extracted customer-feedback questions into evaluation criteria by merging the customer-feedback questions and generated a customer-feedback derived evaluation criteria set.” This is interpreted based on [0038] as published, one of only two places that recite “merging” – “The evaluation form-builder module 110 is responsible for merging all the valid and appropriate questions received from the customer feedback questionnaire and creating an evaluation form (at a step 161) which now contains all the questions laid out by the customer.” Examiner notes this not an additional element, but rather, just putting customer-feedback into the evaluation criteria. See MPEP 2106.05(c), “For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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 8 is directed to a system at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one, 2a, prong 2, and step 2b. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 15 is directed to a method at step 1, which is a statutory category. Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 narrow the abstract idea by “visualizing” the score to a user. To extent it is communicate “via output devices each accessible by the at least one of the one or more user-selected evaluators,” this is considered “apply it [abstract idea] on a computer at step 2a, prong two and step 2B. In addition, passing information to over a network is considered a conventional computer function at step 2B – See MPEP 2106.05d(II) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362. Claims 3, 10, and 17 narrow the abstract idea by naming filters for how interactions selected (e.g. customer scoring, duration of interaction), narrowing the abstract idea for mathematical relationships of thresholds; and further narrow abstract idea by including counts related to priority values and assigning tasks. Claims 4, 11, and 18 narrow the abstract idea by having “additional” or second interactions; claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea by then having a form of questions based on “additional” interactions and communicating to evaluators (people). Claims 7, 14, and 21 narrow the abstract idea by specifying how the customer feedback variance score is from the evaluator person completing the form compared to customer feedback from “additional” questionnaires.
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.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art and the 103 Rejection.
Claim 1 overcomes the prior art based on combination of limitations including: agent-priority value, evaluator-priority value, generating agent evaluation form for the selected agent-customer interaction from the customer-feedback derived evaluation criteria set, a customer questionnaire, and variance between evaluator and customer feedback. The reasons for overcoming Prior Art may change as there is a 112a rejection now present for one of the new limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the new rejections.
With regards to 101, Applicant argues that there is no mental process or method of organizing human activity here since there are data stores, it is “processor-implemented” and a “machine-persisted architecture” for counters related to assignment. Remarks, page 27-28. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, “mental process” was not applied. Second, even if it was, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea for having a set of rules in an evaluation form for evaluating people in their work performance, as stated in the revised rejection above. MPEP 2106.05(f) represents the principle that a computer alone does not make a claim eligible. In addition, with regards to “counters” for managing which workers to assign an evaluation of an employee next, just “storing” counter values in a computer does not make the claim eligible. There is no improvement to computing technology by managing the tasks in the computer.
Applicant argues that the claim is similar to “removing malicious code” in Example 1. Remarks, pages 28-29. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims here are for managing evaluations of employees. Example 1 is not similar, merely by storing information in databases and data stores.
Applicant argues that the claim has indexed retrieval, identifier-based correlation, dynamic evaluation-form generation, and priority driven assignment and has a “calibration-distribution pipeline” using indexed search. Remarks, pages 30. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, representing data as “identifiers” and retrieving desired data is not viewed here as improving computing technology, nor is it “meaningfully limiting the claim” (MPEP 2106.05(e) – e.g. Diamond v. Diehr – opening and closing a mold). Rather, it is viewed as “field of use” to retrieve in any manner by the data stored (named identifier). With regards to “dynamic,” The disclosure has no instance of word “dynamic” and this is viewed as just relying on the computer itself. See MPEP 2106.05f - "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With regards to “priority driven assignment” – this is narrowing the abstract idea, having rules people follow for which tasks or which people do the next task. With regards to “pipeline”, there is no pipeline in the claims or the specification. The “calibration” is the starting evaluation for the workers.
Applicant argues they are “processing large-scale agent-customer interaction data” and using “identifier-based correlation.” Remarks, pages 31. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, it is unclear how the claims require some kind of “large-scale” or what this is referring to. Second, as stated in the 112a rejection, there is no support for “correlation”, so it is unclear what Applicant is referring to.
Applicant argues they are “continuously” updating agent priority and evaluator priority and “controls” assignment operations. Remarks, pages 32-33. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, there is no “control” even recited; to the extent assignments are changing, these are messages to people to do a certain evaluation of a worker next. “Continuously updating” just refers to having updates to priorities for which agents to review and which evaluators to use next, which are still part of the abstract idea. The process is the same when done manually, or on a computer.
With regards to step 2B, Applicant argues that [0041] as published discloses 98% and 99.5% reduction in calibration-assignment response time in comparison to manual. Remarks, pages 36. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not persuasive, as the “calibration” is part of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05f - "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant then argues there needs to be conventional evidence for all limitations. Remarks, pages 36-37. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to step 2B, only those additional elements (analyzed under 2B) that are deemed “conventional” need to comply with Berkheimer. When elements are just part of “apply it” [abstract idea] on a computer, under MPEP 2106.05(f); or “field of use” under MPEP 2106.05h, no evidence is needed.
The remaining arguments are moot in view of the revised rejections necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
