DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/21/26 has been entered, in which Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 15. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been submitted on behalf of this case. Accordingly, the examiner has not considered an IDS.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-20 regarding abstract ideas are maintained in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
Revised 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are applied in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP, as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 9-14) and "system" (claims 1-8, 15-20).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
receiving performance details and behavior details for an agent;
calculating a performance score and a behavior score for the agent based on the performance details and the behavior details;
combining the performance score and the behavior score to yield a current proficiency score of the agent;
calculating a proficiency deviation between the current proficiency score of the agent and a previous proficiency score of the agent by subtracting the previous score of the agent from the current proficiency score of the agent;
wherein the previous proficiency score comprises a combination of a previous performance score and a previous behavior score;
determining whether the proficiency deviation of the agent is within an acceptable range;
automatically updating the previous proficiency score of the agent with the current proficiency score of the agent when the proficiency deviation of the agent is within an acceptable range, or transmitting a proficiency score request to a supervisor of the agent for review when the proficiency deviation of the agent is not within an acceptable range;
wherein the one or more actions comprises: identifying an available agent with the highest current proficiency score and routing …, an incoming interaction to the available agent with the highest current proficiency score,.
Independent claims 9 and 15 recite substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, and 18 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1-20 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" An agent proficiency scoring system comprising: a 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 processor, to perform operations which comprise: / A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform operations which comprise:… via a telephony system" (claims 1, 8, and 15) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "computer system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use via a "computer system", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold.
Claims 1-20 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(A)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0344800 to Shwartz et al. (hereafter referred to as Shwartz).
As per claim 1, Shwartz teaches:
An agent proficiency scoring system comprising: a 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 processor, to perform operations which comprise: (Paragraph Number [0040] teaches an analytics system 160 may also perform some or all of the functionality ascribed to the contact center control system 142 above. For instance, the analytics system 160 may record telephone and internet-based interactions, and/or perform behavioral analyses. The analytics system 160 may be integrated into the contact center control system 142 as a hardware or software module and share its computing resources 144, 146, 148, and 150, or it may be a separate computing system housed, for example, in the analytics center 120 shown in FIG. 1. In the latter case, the analytics system 160 includes its own processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., system memory, hard drive, etc.) on which to store analytics software and other software instructions).
receiving performance details and behavior details for an agent; (Paragraph Number [0035] teaches the contact center 100 further includes a contact center control system 142 that is generally configured to provide recording, voice analysis, behavioral analysis, text analysis, storage, and other processing functionality to the contact center 100. [0051] At step 308, ACD 130 measures the performance of the agent in relation to the one or more agent skills during or after the customer communication. In various embodiment, ACD 130 defines a KPI in relation to each of the one or more agent skills and measures each KPI during or after the customer communication.).
calculating a performance score and a behavior score for the agent based on the performance details and the behavior details; (Paragraph Number [0035] teaches the contact center 100 further includes a contact center control system 142 that is generally configured to provide recording, voice analysis, behavioral analysis, text analysis, storage, and other processing functionality to the contact center 100. Paragraph Number [0052] teaches KPIs are a measurable value that demonstrates how effectively a company, department, team, or individual is achieving business goals. The KPIs analyze and help identify synergies, opportunities and improvement areas. The KPIs are flexible and can be any type of performance indicator, such as one or more of a call length, a satisfaction survey score, or a customer desire for another agent. In some embodiments, the KPIs include sales per agent, active waiting calls, longest call hold, peak hour traffic, revenue per successful call, call center status metrics, call abandonment, handle time, cost per call, on hold time, call resolution, repeat calls, or any combination thereof. Paragraph Number [0053] teaches ACD 130 updates, in real-time, one or more performance scores of the agent in a skill profile or table. The one or more performance scores are related to the one or more agent skills. Advantageously, in various embodiments, ACD 130 automatically computes an agent's effective skill level and automatically updates the agent's effective skill level as changes in the agent's effective skills are measured so the agent's effective skill level is up-to-date).
combining the performance score and the behavior score to yield a current proficiency score of the agent (Paragraph Number [0053] teaches ACD 130 updates, in real-time, one or more performance scores of the agent in a skill profile or table. The one or more performance scores are related to the one or more agent skills. Advantageously, in various embodiments, ACD 130 automatically computes an agent's effective skill level and automatically updates the agent's effective skill level as changes in the agent's effective skills are measured so the agent's effective skill level is up-to-date).
calculating a proficiency deviation between the current proficiency score of the agent and a previous proficiency score of the agent by subtracting the previous score of the agent from the current proficiency score of the agent; (Paragraph Number [0061] teaches ACD 130 determines if the updated performance score(s) are greater than the respective threshold score. ACD 130 may provide an alert to an agent supervisor when an updated performance score is above or below the threshold score for a respective KPI. If the agent's updated score is above the threshold, the agent may receive a reward as shown in step 318. In several embodiments, when the updated performance score is above the threshold score, the agent is rewarded. For example, the agent may be given a bonus. If the agent's updated score is below the threshold, the agent supervisor can determine whether the agent needs more training or in extreme circumstances, whether the skill should be removed from the profile of the agent. In certain embodiments, ACD 130 recommends training of the agent or removal of an agent skill from the skill profile when the updated performance score is below the threshold score for the respective KPI as shown in step 320. Paragraph Number [0063] teaches the skill level of the agent is continuously and automatically monitored and updated to ensure that each customer communication received is routed to the best agent. Accordingly, in certain embodiments, ACD 130 routes a plurality of additional customer communications to the agent based on the skill profile of the agent, continuously measures performance of the agent in relation to a skill in the skill profile during or after each additional customer communication, continuously updates, in real-time, a performance score of the agent in the skill profile, and routes a plurality of future customer communications based on the updated performance score. (See also Paragraph Numbers [0058]-[0060] and Table 0005 which teach the weighting and addition of new scores compared to older scores. Examiner asserts that these sections teach calculating and comparing scores to find deviations and differences between them and thus, mathematically and functionally, are performing a subtraction. As such, Examiner asserts that a subtraction of previous scores from the current scores is taught)).
wherein the previous proficiency score comprises a combination of a previous performance score and a previous behavior score (Paragraph Number [0057] teaches the previous score is used and a weighting for each score is applied (e.g., 0.9 of the old score and 0.1 of the new score): Paragraph Number [0058] teaches every communication receives a score between 0 to 10. Previous customer satisfaction scores of the agent may be [1, 0, 1, 10, 9, 1, 3, 4, 9]. After an agent takes a customer communication, the agent receives a score of 9. Again, the old score and the new score can be given different weights to calculate an updated score (e.g., 0.9 for old score and 0.1 for new score). (See also Paragraph Numbers [0058]-[0060] and Table 0005 which teach the weighting and addition of new scores compared to older scores where the older scores are made up performance score and behaviour score as described in regard to Paragraph Number [0035] which described the recording of behaviour analysis and Paragraph Number [0053] which teaches skill profiles of agents relating to performance)).
determining whether the proficiency deviation of the agent is within an acceptable range (Paragraph Number [0061] teaches ACD 130 determines if the updated performance score(s) are greater than the respective threshold score. ACD 130 may provide an alert to an agent supervisor when an updated performance score is above or below the threshold score for a respective KPI. If the agent's updated score is above the threshold, the agent may receive a reward as shown in step 318. In several embodiments, when the updated performance score is above the threshold score, the agent is rewarded. For example, the agent may be given a bonus. If the agent's updated score is below the threshold, the agent supervisor can determine whether the agent needs more training or in extreme circumstances, whether the skill should be removed from the profile of the agent. In certain embodiments, ACD 130 recommends training of the agent or removal of an agent skill from the skill profile when the updated performance score is below the threshold score for the respective KPI as shown in step 320).
automatically updating the previous proficiency score of the agent with the current proficiency score of the agent when the proficiency deviation of the agent is within an acceptable range, or transmitting a proficiency score request to a supervisor of the agent for review when the proficiency deviation of the agent is not within an acceptable range (Paragraph Number [0063] teaches the skill level of the agent is continuously and automatically monitored and updated to ensure that each customer communication received is routed to the best agent. Accordingly, in certain embodiments, ACD 130 routes a plurality of additional customer communications to the agent based on the skill profile of the agent, continuously measures performance of the agent in relation to a skill in the skill profile during or after each additional customer communication, continuously updates, in real-time, a performance score of the agent in the skill profile, and routes a plurality of future customer communications based on the updated performance score).
wherein the one or more actions comprises: identifying an available agent with the highest current proficiency score and routing via a telephony system, an incoming interaction to the available agent with the highest current proficiency score, (Paragraph Number [0063] teaches the skill level of the agent is continuously and automatically monitored and updated to ensure that each customer communication received is routed to the best agent. Accordingly, in certain embodiments, ACD 130 routes a plurality of additional customer communications to the agent based on the skill profile of the agent, continuously measures performance of the agent in relation to a skill in the skill profile during or after each additional customer communication, continuously updates, in real-time, a performance score of the agent in the skill profile, and routes a plurality of future customer communications based on the updated performance score).
As per claim 9, claim 9 recites a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system found in claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons put forth in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 15, Shwartz teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions executable by a processor to perform operations which comprise: (Paragraph Number [0040] teaches an analytics system 160 may also perform some or all of the functionality ascribed to the contact center control system 142 above. For instance, the analytics system 160 may record telephone and internet-based interactions, and/or perform behavioral analyses. The analytics system 160 may be integrated into the contact center control system 142 as a hardware or software module and share its computing resources 144, 146, 148, and 150, or it may be a separate computing system housed, for example, in the analytics center 120 shown in FIG. 1. In the latter case, the analytics system 160 includes its own processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g., system memory, hard drive, etc.) on which to store analytics software and other software instructions).
The remainder of the claim limitations are substantially similar to those found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons put forth in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 18, Cameron teaches each of the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Cameron teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to adjust the indication of engagement with the device as additional data is gathered by the system (Paragraph Number [0141] teaches sharing and/or syncing data such as usage information (including chronological usage), type of vaporizable and/or non-vaporizable material used, frequency of usage, location of usage, recommendation data, communications (e.g., text messages, advertisements, photo messages), simultaneous use of multiple devices, and the like) between one or more devices such as a vapor device 1302, a vapor device 1304, a vapor device 1306, and an electronic communication device 1308).
As per claims 2, 10, and 17, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively.
In addition, Shwartz teaches:
wherein the performance details comprise one or more of a duration in a company, a reward or recognition, an absence from work, an occupancy rate, an average manager feedback, a previous proficiency level, an overall customer feedback, an escalation count, adherence to schedule, number of time-offs taken in a certain interval of time, or number of skills that the agent used in a specific interval (Paragraph Number [0061] teaches ACD 130 determines if the updated performance score(s) are greater than the respective threshold score. ACD 130 may provide an alert to an agent supervisor when an updated performance score is above or below the threshold score for a respective KPI. If the agent's updated score is above the threshold, the agent may receive a reward as shown in step 318. In several embodiments, when the updated performance score is above the threshold score, the agent is rewarded. For example, the agent may be given a bonus. If the agent's updated score is below the threshold, the agent supervisor can determine whether the agent needs more training or in extreme circumstances, whether the skill should be removed from the profile of the agent. In certain embodiments, ACD 130 recommends training of the agent or removal of an agent skill from the skill profile when the updated performance score is below the threshold score for the respective KPI as shown in step 320).
As per claims 3, 11, and 18, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively.
In addition, Shwartz teaches:
wherein the behavior details comprise one or more of acknowledging loyalty, active listening, being empathetic, building rapport, demonstrating ownership, effective questioning, interruption, promoting self-service, setting expectations, speech velocity, or inappropriate action (Paragraph Number [0035] teaches the contact center 100 further includes a contact center control system 142 that is generally configured to provide recording, voice analysis, behavioral analysis, text analysis, storage, and other processing functionality to the contact center 100. Paragraph Number [0052] teaches KPIs are a measurable value that demonstrates how effectively a company, department, team, or individual is achieving business goals. The KPIs analyze and help identify synergies, opportunities and improvement areas. The KPIs are flexible and can be any type of performance indicator, such as one or more of a call length, a satisfaction survey score, or a customer desire for another agent. In some embodiments, the KPIs include sales per agent, active waiting calls, longest call hold, peak hour traffic, revenue per successful call, call center status metrics, call abandonment, handle time, cost per call, on hold time, call resolution, repeat calls, or any combination thereof. Paragraph Number [0053] teaches ACD 130 updates, in real-time, one or more performance scores of the agent in a skill profile or table. The one or more performance scores are related to the one or more agent skills. Advantageously, in various embodiments, ACD 130 automatically computes an agent's effective skill level and automatically updates the agent's effective skill level as changes in the agent's effective skills are measured so the agent's effective skill level is up-to-date).
As per claims 4, 12, and 16, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively.
In addition, Shwartz teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: assigning coaching to the agent, or displaying a proficiency score on a supervisor dashboard. (Paragraph Number [0065] teaches the algorithms described above may advantageously provide insights on an agent's performance against the skills assigned to the agent. The dashboard may be refreshed every few seconds, for example, to present new scores and trends for each agent in real-time. For example, referring to FIG. 4A, an exemplary dashboard 400 is illustrated that includes a list 405 of agents, their scores, and trends of their scores. As can be seen, scores for Yoav Alroy, Tal Raskin, Ifat Shwartz, and Obi Wan are trending upwards, while scores for Michael Segal, Natan Katz, and Luke Skywalker are trending downwards. In an exemplary embodiment, scores that are trending upwards are displayed in green, while scores that are trending downwards are displayed in red. Alternative colors may be used, of course).
As per claim 5, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Shwartz teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: assigning a weight to the performance score (Paragraph Number [0054] teaches after the KPI is measured, the old score for the agent skill (i.e., an older aggregated KPI score) is updated based on an update rule, which can be any weighted mean, median, or average. The old KPI score is then replaced with a new KPI score.).
assigning a weight to the behavior score (Paragraph Number [0057] teaches the previous score is used and a weighting for each score is applied (e.g., 0.9 of the old score and 0.1 of the new score)).
multiplying the performance score and the behavior score by their respective weights before combining the performance score and the behavior score (Paragraph Number [0058] teaches every communication receives a score between 0 to 10. Previous customer satisfaction scores of the agent may be [1, 0, 1, 10, 9, 1, 3, 4, 9]. After an agent takes a customer communication, the agent receives a score of 9. Again, the old score and the new score can be given different weights to calculate an updated score (e.g., 0.9 for old score and 0.1 for new score). Paragraph Number [0053] teaches ACD 130 updates, in real-time, one or more performance scores of the agent in a skill profile or table. The one or more performance scores are related to the one or more agent skills. Advantageously, in various embodiments, ACD 130 automatically computes an agent's effective skill level and automatically updates the agent's effective skill level as changes in the agent's effective skills are measured so the agent's effective skill level is up-to-date).
As per claim 6, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Shwartz teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise setting a current proficiency level of the agent based on the current proficiency score (Paragraph Number [0063] teaches the skill level of the agent is continuously and automatically monitored and updated to ensure that each customer communication received is routed to the best agent. Accordingly, in certain embodiments, ACD 130 routes a plurality of additional customer communications to the agent based on the skill profile of the agent, continuously measures performance of the agent in relation to a skill in the skill profile during or after each additional customer communication, continuously updates, in real-time, a performance score of the agent in the skill profile, and routes a plurality of future customer communications based on the updated performance score).
As per claims 7, 13, and 19, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively.
In addition, Shwartz teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an approval of the proficiency score request from the supervisor of the agent (Paragraph Number [0066] teaches a graphical representation 410 of the skills trends for Obi Wan is provided for a variety of skills (technology, retainment, mental, and Spanish), along with the current scores for Obi Wan's skills. A new skill (billing) has also been added to Obi Wan's profile. As illustrated, Obi Wan's technology skills are on a downward trend, and this trend is highlighted for the agent supervisor, along with a recommendation that the agent should be provided training or coaching. In FIG. 4C, the supervisor selects the “coach agent” button so that Obi Wan can be provided with appropriate training).
updating the previous proficiency score of the agent with the current proficiency score of the agent after receiving the approval (Paragraph Number [0063] teaches the skill level of the agent is continuously and automatically monitored and updated to ensure that each customer communication received is routed to the best agent. Accordingly, in certain embodiments, ACD 130 routes a plurality of additional customer communications to the agent based on the skill profile of the agent, continuously measures performance of the agent in relation to a skill in the skill profile during or after each additional customer communication, continuously updates, in real-time, a performance score of the agent in the skill profile, and routes a plurality of future customer communications based on the updated performance score).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0344800 to Shwartz et al. (hereafter referred to as Shwartz) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0020618 to Singh et al. (hereafter referred to as Singh).
As per claims 8, 14, and 20, Shwartz teaches each of the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 respectively.
Shwartz teaches calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold but does not explicitly teach rejecting a particular score for an agent and providing an explanation as to why as described by the following citations from Singh:
wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a rejection of the proficiency score request from the supervisor of the agent (Paragraph Number [0051] teaches an enterprise skill planning component 512 may receive new skills for approval from the skill intelligence ontology component 510. That is, new extracted skills may be considered for approval by a subject matter expert (SME), a learning and development manager, a human resources team member, a supervisor, a manager, a project lead, and so forth. Accordingly, the enterprise skill planning component 512 may send approvals, rejections, and/or modifications of new skills to the skill intelligence ontology component 510 for inclusion in the enterprise's skill ontology. In some cases, the skill intelligence ontology component 510 may also request approvals from supervisors confirming that employees actually have skills in question. Additionally, the skill intelligence ontology component 510 may generate learning plans for developing new skills as employees progress along common paths through an organization. For example, learning plans may include plans for learning a specific set of skills as a new employee is onboarded, as an employee joins a specific team (e.g., software development, accounting, IT, etc.), as an employee moves from being a contractor to a full-time employee, as an employee moves from a first team to a second team, as an employee moves up an organizational chart of the enterprise (e.g., becomes a supervisor, a manager, a project lead, a director, vice president, executive, etc.), as an employee moves to a different region or office, and so forth).
receiving comments explaining the rejection from the supervisor of the agent (Paragraph Number [0052] teaches a personalized skill planning component 514 may generate coaching or skill development plans for individual employees based upon their goals, their strengths skill gaps, avenues for upward mobility, etc. The skill development plans for individual employees may be received by the skill intelligence ontology component 510 and the skill ontology may be updated based on trends identified in the received skill development plans. Employee profiles in the skill ontology may be updated to reflect goals. In some embodiments, the personalized skill planning component 514 may also confirm whether employees actually possess skills in questions based on the extracted data (See also Paragraph Number [0051])).
Both Shwartz and Singh are directed to agent scoring and management in a call center. Shwartz discloses calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold. Singh improves upon Shwartz by disclosing rejecting a particular score for an agent and providing an explanation as to why. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include rejecting a particular score for an agent and providing an explanation as to why, to efficiently check, monitor, and correct automated scoring systems so that abuse or mistakes are corrected depending on the circumstances. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of calculating performance and behavior scores for agents and implementing actions based on whether those scores meet a threshold in Shwartz to further utilize rejecting a particular score for an agent and providing an explanation as to why as disclosed in Singh, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 1/21/2026, pgs. 8-14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time (including monitoring information associated with agent/customer interactions). The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms (including monitoring information associated with agents) on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.). As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Applicant argues that the previously cited reference does not teach the newly amended portions including the new limitations recited by the independent claims. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 1/21/2026, pgs. 15-18). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that new citations from the newly cited Shwartz reference have been applied to the newly presented claim limitations as indicated in the above in the new 102 rejection. Examiner has added and emphasized specific portions of the Shwartz reference to read on the amended portions of the independent claims. As such, Applicant’s arguments directed towards the previous rejection are moot. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner directs Applicant to review the new citations and explanations provided in the new 102 rejection presented above. In specific response to Applicant’s assertions, Examiner has applied Paragraph Numbers Paragraph Number Paragraph Number [0057] teaches the previous score is used and a weighting for each score is applied (e.g., 0.9 of the old score and 0.1 of the new score): Paragraph Number [0058] teaches every communication receives a score between 0 to 10. Previous customer satisfaction scores of the agent may be [1, 0, 1, 10, 9, 1, 3, 4, 9]. After an agent takes a customer communication, the agent receives a score of 9. Again, the old score and the new score can be given different weights to calculate an updated score (e.g., 0.9 for old score and 0.1 for new score). (See also Paragraph Numbers [0058]-[0060] and Table 0005 which teach the weighting and addition of new scores compared to older scores where the older scores are made up performance score and behaviour score as described in regard to Paragraph Number [0035] which described the recording of behaviour analysis and Paragraph Number [0053] which teaches skill profiles of agents relating to performance). As such, Examiner asserts that the Shwartz reference teaches wherein the previous proficiency score comprises a combination of a previous performance score and a previous behavior score. It response to whether Shwartz teaches a behavior score Examiner notes that both a broadest reasonable interpretation and a person having ordinary skill in the art must be taken into consideration. The Shwartz reference clearly teaches making determinations as to a level of behavior of an agent. Examiner notes that it does not take a fully fleshed out scale to have a scoring system in place. Having something that is good or bad is effectively a scoring mechanism under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the word score. Shwartz discloses at least this. However, it goes further to teach that weights can be applied to each score. A person of ordinary skill would not read this teaching and come to the conclusion that this must mean that only a one specific type of score (i.e. the one that is currently being used as an example) could be considered, but instead would understand that what is taught is that weights can be applied to each score currently under consideration. While performance scores are one type of scores that Shwartz teaches, Examiner asserts that other scores are also taught and that a person of ordinary skill would understand that weights could be applied to each score as taught by Shwartz. As such, Examiner maintains that the Shwartz reference teaches each of the claim limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M.H.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624