DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03).
Independent Claims 1 and 11,
Step 2A – Prong One:
The limitations of these claims recite the following:
analyzing social media content to identify a plurality of issues encountered by clients of a contact center
ranking the plurality of issues
identifying a plurality of agents best suited to handle the selected issue based on agent skills
determining a next best available time for a live agent session
analyze, with the live agent session, at least one of social media comments and reactions of the clients of the contact center to the live agent session and
generate, with the live agent session, one or more suggestions for the group of agents based on the analysis of the at least one of social media comments and reactions of the clients of the contact center to the live agent session.
These specific limitations recite an abstract idea, a certain method of organizing human activity because these limitations has been performed by contact center managers because they collect and analyze call center statistics to adjust processes to meet goals, both customer service and operational. Additionally, the limitations recite a mental process on a generic computer or in a computer environment (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)). The determining, updating and generation of data are concepts that can be performed in the human mind, specifically observation and evaluation.
Claims 1, and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The scope of the independent claim limitations incorporate the following additional elements:
one processor; and at least one memory
a computing system
using an artificial intelligence model
broadcasting a [data] stream of the live agent session and
a social media platform with a corresponding application programming interface
These additional elements listed above, or combination of these elements, amount to nothing more than simply reciting the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, MPEP 2106.05(f). The system elements, one or more processors, a memory compromising a plurality of instructions, to implement the abstract idea amount to mere instructions to apply it using generic computer components. Further additional elements that recite generally implemented computer processes, like broadcasting a stream of the live agent session, are recited at a high level of generality amount to nothing more than instructions to apply the abstract idea without any improvement to technology, technical field, or to the functioning of the computer itself.
Therefore, the additional elements, whether evaluated individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the combination of additional elements is evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea of analyzing social media content. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims –
Claims 2 and 12 further recite the abstract idea of analyzing social media comments and reactions. This is a function that an administrator who analyzes client feedback information. The claim limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 3 and 13 further recite the abstract idea of analyzing social media comments and reactions as well as generating a suggested list of agents. This is a function that an administrator who analyzes client feedback information to adjust processes and operations to meet customer service expectations. The claim limitations are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 4 and 14 recite the additional element of retrieving knowledgebase content based on social media comments and reactions. This additional element, whether considered individually or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 15 further recite the abstract idea of a ranking of agents from a suggested list. This is a function that an administrator who analyzes client feedback information to adjust processes and operations to meet customer service expectations. The claim limitation is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 6 and 16 recite the additional elements, transmitting an invitation to a live agent session and broadcast the livestream. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 17 further recite the abstract idea of a ranking of the plurality of client issues. This is a function that an administrator who analyzes client feedback information to adjust processes and operations to meet customer service expectations by ranking the issues impacting clients. The claim limitation is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 18 further recite the abstract idea of a ranking of the plurality of client issues based upon the relative importance of the client. This is a function that an administrator who analyzes client feedback information to adjust processes and operations to meet customer service expectations by ranking the issues impacting clients. The claim limitation is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 19 further recite the abstract idea of a ranking of the plurality of client issues based upon the potential impact of the issue. This is a function that an administrator who analyzes client feedback information to adjust processes and operations to meet customer service expectations by ranking the issues impacting clients. The claim limitation is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 10 and 20 further recite the additional elements of broadcasting the live agent session, receiving the stream from a uniform resource locator, and relaying real-time stream from the agent desktop. These additional elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements do not add significantly more to apply the abstract idea.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments have been considered however, they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, the amendment featuring “analyze, with the artificial intelligence model and concurrently with the live agent session, at least one of social media comments and reactions of the clients of the contact center to the live agent session obtained from a social media platform with a corresponding application programming interface and generate, with the artificial intelligence model and concurrently with the live agent session, one or more suggestions for the group of agents based on the analysis of the at least one of social media comments and reactions of the clients of the contact center to the live agent session” the claimed additional elements recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” using generic computer components and functionality. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components are insufficient to provide an inventive concept. Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high-level of generality and add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of the claimed limitations is equally generic and otherwise held to be abstract since the combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components operating in their ordinary and generic capacities of what is typically expected of computers storing and updating data, and receiving and transmitting data between generic computer devices. The claimed invention is not patent eligible because the additional elements are merely invoked as tools to execute the abstract idea and thus are insufficient to amount to an inventive concept significantly more than the judicial exception. Furthermore, the claimed additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to be executed in a computer environment, thus do nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The relevant prior art made of record not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and work schedule is generally Monday-Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
In order to receive any email communication from the Examiner, filing for official authorization for Internet Communication is required. The authorization form can be accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Examiner interviews can be requested by telephone or are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782 for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention. Additional information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the USPTO Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The Patent Center is available to all users for electronic filing and management of patent applications and can be contacted for questions at 1-866-217-9197 or 571-272-4100.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights