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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 11/20/2026, Applicant responded on 5/19/2026. Amended claims 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 20. Canceled claims 7 and 15.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 are pending in this application have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 20 are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 8-9, 16-17, and 20 are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “…the claims as a whole are directed to utilizing supervisor impact scores to implement automated actions to improve contact center performance, such as targeted employee training, improved employee feedback, improved employee training, improved employee hours scheduling, and enhanced employee motivational efforts. See Specification at Paragraph [0002].…Performing an action automatically, comprising at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a workforce management application, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction, is not a mental process, a mathematical concept, or a method of organizing human activity. These actions may be taken by a performance management application, quality planner application, evaluation application, coaching application, and/or a workforce management application, to use the overall impact score to improve and/or encourage supervisors, and to automatically schedule high-impact supervisors in shifts with high coaching requirements. Specification at Paragraphs [0018], [0035]-[0042]…. present claims are directed to use of a graphical user interface in performance monitoring and/or management activities to improve contact center performance. See Specification at Paragraphs [0091]-[0093]. In particular, the claims provide a tool via the graphical user interface to assess the impact of supervisor actions and perform actions as appropriate to improve contact center performance. The above claims recite an improved approach to the field of improving contact center performance by providing an efficient method for analyzing supervisor actions, identifying training needs, and providing employee feedback/motivation. See Specification at Paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0091]-[0093]…. indicates that the action to improve contact center performance based on the overall impact score displayed via the graphical user interface, which as recited with respect to the user interface cannot be performed purely in the human mind. In particular, at least the steps of displaying the overall impact score through the graphical user interface cannot be performed by a human or on pen and paper. At least performing one of the above-recited actions does not fall within "certain methods of organizing human activity" since it is not a fundamental economic principle or practice, a commercial or legal interaction, or managing personal behavior or relationships between people. The claims are not merely directed to calculating the overall impact score and implementing actions based on whether the score meets a threshold. The claims recite methods and systems configured to perform an action to improve contact center performance based on the overall impact score…the present claims do not merely cover abstract methods of a mental process, a mathematical concept, and certain methods of organizing human activity, and do not fit into any of the abstract idea groupings required to reject the claims under Step 2A, Prong One as discussed in the 2019 Guidance and as discussed in the Office's August 2025 Memo….The claims recite a graphical user interface (see, e.g., FIGS. 5-6 of the present application). The graphical user interface is specialized and designed specifically to facilitate contact center performance by allowing a user to view and analyze impact scores of supervisors. For example, as recited in the claims, a supervisor's overall impact score is provided to a user via the graphical user interface such that the user can take action to improve contact center performance based on the score. The overall impact score over multiple interactions and/or over various time periods may be displayed (see, e.g., FIG. 5 of the present application) or a breakdown of impact scores for each action of a supervisor may be viewed (see, e.g., FIG. 6 of the present application). See Specification at Paragraphs [0091]-[0093]. The present claims implement measuring impact of supervisor actions and performing an action to improve contact center performance accordingly, using a graphical user interface to allow users to view and analyze overall impact scores of supervisors in a contact center. The present claims leverage measuring and tracking supervisor impact at various points of a supervisor-agent interaction and graphical user interfaces to facilitate supervisor staffing and scheduling, supervisor training and motivation, and overall contact center performance. The present claims cover a particular way to determine and track supervisor impact, which is an improvement over existing methods (limited to allowing a supervisor to impact an agent- customer interaction, but not measuring and tracking the impact), as described in the Specification at Paragraph [0004]. Therefore, the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claims are not directed to an abstract idea…the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea under either of the revised Step 2A, Prongs One or Two of the Mayo test…this combination of features is not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field of contact center performance:...” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s amendments further prosecution, the claims, by Applicant’s own admission, recite and direct to, …actions to improve contact center performance, such as targeted employee training, improved employee feedback, improved employee training, improved employee hours scheduling, and enhanced employee motivational efforts. See Specification at Paragraph [0002]…Performing an action automatically, comprising at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a workforce management application, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction…to use the overall impact score to improve and/or encourage supervisors, and to automatically schedule high-impact supervisors in shifts with high coaching requirements… assess the impact of supervisor actions and perform actions as appropriate to improve contact center performance…field of improving contact center performance by providing an efficient method for analyzing supervisor actions, identifying training needs, and providing employee feedback/motivation… allowing a user to view and analyze impact scores of supervisors… The present claims leverage measuring and tracking supervisor impact at various points of a supervisor-agent interaction… to facilitate supervisor staffing and scheduling, supervisor training and motivation, and overall contact center performance… a particular way to determine and track supervisor impact, which is an improvement over existing methods (limited to allowing a supervisor to impact an agent- customer interaction, but not measuring and tracking the impact), as described in the Specification at Paragraph [0004]… to allow users to view and analyze overall impact scores of supervisors in a contact center…the claims as a whole are directed to utilizing supervisor impact scores to implement automated actions to improve contact center performance, such as targeted employee training, improved employee feedback, improved employee training, improved employee hours scheduling, and enhanced employee motivational efforts…improvements include targeted employee training, improved employee feedback, improved employee training, improved employee hours scheduling, and enhanced employee motivation efforts…to help improve supervisor skills, manage supervisor staffing and scheduling, and compare and incentivize supervisors…., which is a problem directed to a mental process (i.e. human managing and evaluating human supervisors, human supervisor observing and evaluating human agent performance, human supervisor supervising human agent, human supervisor managing human agents’ behaviors using math, human automatically performing an action to improve contact center from managing human supervisor and human agent behaviors, instructing human to perform action to improve human contact center performance based on doing math), organizing human activities (i.e. human managing and evaluating human supervisors, human supervisor observing and evaluating human agent performance, human managing and evaluating human supervisors using math, human supervisor supervising human agents, human supervisor managing human agents’ behaviors using math, human automatically performing an action to improve contact center from managing human supervisor and human agent behaviors, instructing human to perform action to improve human contact center performance based on doing math) and mathematical concepts (i.e. human managing and evaluating human supervisors using math, human supervisor using math to supervise human agents’ behaviors), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem or necessarily roots in computing technologies. The alleged solutions are solutions directed to solving abstract ideas, which are still abstract ideas. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 (apply it or general link) or amount to significantly more under Step 2B (apply it or WURC).
The limitations recite abstract elements that are part of and directed to the recited abstract idea as described above with respect to the first prong of Step 2A, i.e. mental process, organizing human activities, and mathematical concepts, applied with generic computing components and generally linked to a technical environment, i.e. computer. Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
As stated in the MPEP, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology." MPEP 2106.05(a). Mere automation of a manual process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, Applicant’s claims do not recite an improvement in technology or integrate into a practical application, but rather mental processes, organizing human activities, and mathematical concepts implemented using or applying generic computer components.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Further, the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality:
i. Generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1245, 120 USPQ2d at 1857;
ii. Accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality,” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); and
viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
And, the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “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).
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include:
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Response to Arguments – Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered.
The closest prior art are US Patent Publication to US20140140497A1 to Ripa et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Ripa”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20130142322A1 to Grasso et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Grasso”) in view of US Patent Publication to US20210295957A1 to Quan et al., (hereinafter referred to as “Quan”).
However, the teachings of the references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 17,
Claim 1, (similarly 9, 17): A system adapted to measure impact of supervisor actions comprising:
a graphical user interface;
at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the at least one processor, to perform operations which comprise:
identifying an interaction where a contact center supervisor performed a supervisor action, where the supervisor supervised a contact center agent;
identifying a supervisor intervention point in the interaction, wherein the supervisor action occurs during the supervisor intervention point;
determining an impact score for each of a plurality of behavioral factors of the agent in the interaction, wherein each behavioral factor from the plurality of behavioral factors reflects agent behavior in the interaction;
aggregating the impact scores for the plurality of behavioral factors in the interaction and determining an average of the impact scores to provide an overall impact score for the supervisor action in the interaction through the graphical user interface; and
performing an action automatically based on the overall impact score to improve contact center performance, wherein performing the action comprises at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a workforce management application, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction,
wherein the overall impact score is displayed through the graphical user interface.
No Non-Patent literature teach the specific ordered sequence of limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 17.
The prior art rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 9, 17) recite, “…, to perform operations which comprise:
identifying an interaction where a contact center supervisor performed a supervisor action, where the supervisor supervised a contact center agent;
identifying a supervisor intervention point in the interaction, wherein the supervisor action occurs during the supervisor intervention point;
determining an impact score for each of a plurality of behavioral factors of the agent in the interaction, wherein each behavioral factor from the plurality of behavioral factors reflects agent behavior in the interaction;
aggregating the impact scores for the plurality of behavioral factors in the interaction and determining an average of the impact scores to provide an overall impact score for the supervisor action in the interaction through the …; and
performing an action automatically based on the overall impact score to improve contact center performance, wherein performing the action comprises at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a …, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction,
wherein the overall impact score is displayed through the ….”
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …identifying an interaction where a contact center supervisor performed a supervisor action, where the supervisor supervised a contact center agent; identifying a supervisor intervention point in the interaction, wherein the supervisor action occurs during the supervisor intervention point; determining an impact score for each of a plurality of behavioral factors of the agent in the interaction, wherein each behavioral factor from the plurality of behavioral factors reflects agent behavior in the interaction; aggregating the impact scores for the plurality of behavioral factors in the interaction and determining an average of the impact scores to provide an overall impact score for the supervisor action in the interaction through the …; and performing an action automatically based on the overall impact score to improve contact center performance, wherein performing the action comprises at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a …, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction, wherein the overall impact score is displayed through the…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the identified limitations; therefore, the claims recite a mental process.
Further, …identifying an interaction where a contact center supervisor performed a supervisor action, where the supervisor supervised a contact center agent; identifying a supervisor intervention point in the interaction, wherein the supervisor action occurs during the supervisor intervention point; determining an impact score for each of a plurality of behavioral factors of the agent in the interaction, wherein each behavioral factor from the plurality of behavioral factors reflects agent behavior in the interaction; aggregating the impact scores for the plurality of behavioral factors in the interaction and determining an average of the impact scores to provide an overall impact score for the supervisor action in the interaction through the …; and performing an action automatically based on the overall impact score to improve contact center performance, wherein performing the action comprises at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a …, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction, wherein the overall impact score is displayed through the…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are managing human supervisor managing human contact center agent, therefore it is, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Thus, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, …determining an impact score for each of a plurality of behavioral factors of the agent in the interaction, wherein each behavioral factor from the plurality of behavioral factors reflects agent behavior in the interaction; aggregating the impact scores for the plurality of behavioral factors in the interaction and determining an average of the impact scores to provide an overall impact score for the supervisor action in the interaction through the …; and performing an action automatically based on the overall impact score to improve contact center performance, wherein performing the action comprises at least one of automating performance evaluation of the supervisor, determining performance-linked incentives for the supervisor, scheduling the supervisor in a …, distributing the interaction for evaluation, or assigning coaching to the supervisor or an agent associated with the interaction, wherein the overall impact score is displayed through the…, are mathematical concepts.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 9, 17: A system adapted to measure impact of supervisor actions comprising: a graphical user interface; at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium operably coupled thereto, the non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions stored in association therewith that are accessible to, and executable by, the at least one processor, A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by at least one processor to, workforce management application
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer.
Additionally, with respect to, “identifying …”,” aggregating…”, “performing an action …”, “…displayed…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “identifying…”, “aggregating…”, data output – “performing an action …”, “…displayed…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0019] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example environment 100 according to some embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown, environment 100 may include or implement a plurality of devices, servers, and/or software components that operate to perform various methodologies in accordance with the described embodiments. Exemplary devices and servers may include device, stand-alone, and enterprise-class servers, operating an operating system (OS) such as a MICROSOFT® OS, a UNIX® OS, a LINUX® OS, or another suitable device and/or server-based OS. It will be appreciated that the devices and/or servers illustrated in FIG. 1 may be deployed in other ways and that the operations performed, and/or the services provided, by such devices and/or servers may be combined or separated for a given embodiment and may be performed by a greater number or fewer number of devices and/or servers. For example, machine learning (ML), neural network (NN), and other artificial intelligence (AI) architectures have been developed to improve predictive analysis and classifications by systems in a manner similar to human decision-making, which increases efficiency and speed in performing predictive analysis of transaction data sets. One or more devices and/or servers may be operated and/or maintained by the same or different entities.
[0042] WFM application 148 uses an automated scheduling algorithm to generate the schedules for employees based on available forecasts, skills, and preferences of the employees. In some embodiments, WFM application 148 may include using overall impact scores 132 to automatically schedule supervisors with high impact scores to shifts with high coaching requirements. For example, WFM application 148 may identify shifts in which a maximum, a considerable or a significant number of agents and/or supervisors have been identified by coaching application 146 and may assign coaching resources. WFM application 148 may automatically schedule supervisors with high impact scores to these identified shifts to further assist with coaching needs, e.g., of a given agent or of a particular skill across a group of agents.
[0049] In one or more embodiments, calculator 128 takes full transcript 126 and transcript before intervention 124 to passes the transcripts 124, 126 to models 150 to calculate customer experience scores and impact scores. The difference between the customer experience scores before supervisor intervention and for the entire interaction provides the impact score for the model or behavioral factor. In various embodiments, the impact scores and overall impact scores 132 are saved in impact score database 130, where they are available to other contact center applications. An application that requires an impact score can directly access impact score database 130, and a REST API can be created that provides access to impact score database 130. Other contact center applications (e.g., PM application 140, quality planner application 142, evaluation application 144, coaching application 146, and WFM application 148) can use the impact score to trigger applicable business functions.
[0050] FIG. 2 is an exemplary flowchart 200 for measuring the impact of supervisor actions. Note that one or more steps, processes, and methods described herein of flowchart 200 may be omitted, performed in a different sequence, or combined as desired or appropriate based on the guidance provided herein. Flowchart 200 of FIG. 2 includes operations for determining a supervisor impact score, as discussed in reference to FIG. 1. One or more of steps 202-210 of flowchart 200 may be implemented, at least in part, in the form of executable code stored on non-transitory, tangible, machine-readable media that when run by one or more processors may cause the one or more processors to perform one or more of steps 202-210. In some embodiments, flowchart 200 can be performed by one or more computing devices discussed in environment 100 of FIG. 1.
[0054] Referring now to FIG. 3, shown is an exemplary flowchart 300 for identifying interactions that should be sampled for an impact score. Note that one or more steps, processes, and methods described herein of flowchart 300 may be omitted, performed in a different sequence, or combined as desired or appropriate based on the guidance provided herein. Flowchart 300 of FIG. 3 includes operations for determining a supervisor impact score, as discussed in reference to FIG. 1. One or more of steps 302-308 of flowchart 300 may be implemented, at least in part, in the form of executable code stored on non-transitory, tangible, machine-readable media that when run by one or more processors may cause the one or more processors to perform one or more of steps 302-308. In some embodiments, flowchart 300 can be performed by one or more computing devices discussed in environment 100 of FIG. 1.
[0091] FIG. 5 is an exemplary user interface 500 for interacting with actionable insights generated by a system utilizing supervisor impact scores, according to some embodiments. Interface 500 may be a view available to managers of supervisors and/or agents to assess performance of the agents and/or supervisors they manage. In one or more embodiments, performance of individuals on a team may be viewed and/or compared. In some embodiments, performance of teams may be viewed and/or compared. In some embodiments, the insights on interface 500 may be used to decide incentives to supervisors as part of performance management.
[0092] In one or more embodiments, user interface 500 may be used in performance monitoring and/or management activities, and the overall impact score 132 may be used as a KPI. In other embodiments, the overall impact score 132 over multiple interactions may be averaged and displayed on the interface 400. For example, actionable insights may be viewed over a selected period of time, and the number of interactions during that time period from which an average impact score is calculated may be displayed as well.
[0093] FIG. 6 is an exemplary user interface 600 for a team leader to view impact scores and related data, according to some embodiments. As shown, user interface 600 displays the breakdown of impact scores for each action of a supervisor. This is an alternative view that is presented to supervisors and managers to view impact scores for individual interactions and monitor performance between specific dates. An average score for the selected supervisor over the given date range may be provided as well. In some embodiments, interface 600 may be used to analyze where a supervisor was able to make an impact on an interaction (by having, for example, a positive impact score) or was not able to impact an interaction (by having, for example, a neutral or negative impact score). In certain embodiments, the impact score for each behavioral factor can also be shown so that the breakdown of the overall impact score for each interaction can be seen and understood by the supervisor.
[0094] Where applicable, various embodiments provided by the present disclosure may be implemented using hardware, software, or combinations of hardware and software. Also, where applicable, the various hardware components and/or software components set forth herein may be combined into composite components including software, hardware, and/or both without departing from the spirit of the present disclosure. Where applicable, the various hardware components and/or software components set forth herein may be separated into sub-components including software, hardware, or both without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. In addition, where applicable, it is contemplated that software components may be implemented as hardware components and vice-versa.
[0095] Software, in accordance with the present disclosure, such as program code and/or data, may be stored on one or more computer readable mediums. It is also contemplated that software identified herein may be implemented using one or more general purpose or specific purpose computers and/or computer systems, networked and/or otherwise. Where applicable, the ordering of various steps described herein may be changed, combined into composite steps, and/or separated into sub-steps to provide features described herein.
[0096] Although illustrative embodiments have been shown and described, a wide range of modifications, changes and substitutions are contemplated in the foregoing disclosure and in some instances, some features of the embodiments may be employed without a corresponding use of other features. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize many variations, alternatives, and modifications of the foregoing disclosure. Thus, the scope of the present application should be limited only by the following claims, and it is appropriate that the claims be construed broadly and in a manner consistent with the spirit and full scope of the embodiments disclosed herein.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights