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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply to the action filed on 29 of June 2026.
Claims 7, 9, 14, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because they are directed to a specific technological improvement in contact center workforce management systems. In particular, the claimed invention introduces a microservice that fundamentally alters this architecture by enabling bi-directional data processing. Specifically, the system computes staffing availability, derives an Available Agent Index (AAI), determines Total Addressable Contacts (TAC), and identifies opportunity information by working backward from available agents to addressable contacts. These components are not merely generic computer elements but rather specific technical components of a contact center system that interact in a defined manner to achieve a technical result. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a processor to perform the recited steps, similar to claims 9 and 15, and the specification describes the processor at a high level of generality as a generic computer (see Spec. ¶18), which would do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. At best, the claims do no more than use instructions to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer wherein the focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-1336. The examiner determines the focus of the claim is not on a specific improvement in computer technology but rather on identifying opportunities for agents by calculating various outputs which are qualified as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as tools. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 recites collecting information, analyzing information by mathematical calculations, and transmitting the results, which is an abstract idea. Correspondingly, "a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible." See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The court held that claims directed to selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis, set forth an abstract concept.); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding abstract claims "directed to ... collecting, displaying, and manipulating data"); In re Downing, 754 F. App'x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("This court has consistently treated inventions directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information as abstract ideas."); In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ("We have held in the computer context that 'collecting information' and 'analyzing' that information are within the realm of abstract ideas."); Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366-1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Claim for standardizing data to be conveyed to a bedside device for graphical display was directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data.").
The focus of the claim is not on any improved computer, but the improved mathematical analysis; And “merely calling for a mathematical concept to be performed more efficiently or with a particular input (e.g. bi-directionally) does not amount to an application of the mathematical concept that is patent-eligible. In re Gitlin, 775 F. App'x 689, 691 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (non-precedential). In order “to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia.
Applicant asserts that the examiner pointed to the use of AWS infrastructure in previous the Office Action in order assert that the claims merely automate a manual process. The applicant further asserts that the use of commercially available infrastructure does not preclude patent eligibility. As stated in the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, “well-understood, routine, conventional subject matter can integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.'' The relevant inquiry is whether the claim as a whole integrates any alleged exception into a practical application, not whether individual components are commercially available. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is conflating Step 2A Prong II and Step 2B of the Alice Test in light of PEG 2019. The user of conventional and off-the-shelf computers and technology was pointed out by the examiner in reply to applicant’s argument that a special-purpose computer was used in order to execute the invention. The examiner reiterates that assertion lacks factual support since the Spec. is silent on the matter, and that the abstract idea is merely applying the abstract idea with the aid of generic computer components which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong II. Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 1 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1 amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. It is noted in MPEP 2106.07(a)(III), there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
Applicant asserts that the claims are analogous to Example 40, Claim 1 of the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which was found eligible because "the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data" that "provides a specific improvement over prior systems." Similarly, the present claims are directed to a particular improvement in identifying and implementing agent utilization opportunities in contact centers, providing a specific improvement over prior workforce management systems that required supervisors to perform "tedious analysis on their end via manual reports or previous know-how.". The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Example 40 were found to be eligible because they were not directed to the judicial exception. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since Example 40 includes collecting, by the network appliance, traffic data relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, then adding a limitation that recites receiving net staffing data for a contact center will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis were determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In Example 40, the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by collecting additional NetFlow protocol data whenever the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Example 40 provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern, in fact it is updating status of a calling list based on various calculations, this is not a problem rooted in technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 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.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a contact center workforce management computer 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: receiving net staffing data for a contact center; with a reverse opportunity calculator microservice operatively coupled to the processor and comprising an application program interface, automatically identifying opportunities for agents by: calculating available agents per interval (AAI) information based on the net staffing data by calculating a number of agents per scheduling unit, AAI per scheduling unit, or AAI for a tenant, calculating total addressable contacts (TAC) information based on the AAI information by calculating TAC per hour, TAC per day, TAC with addressable skills per day, TAC per scheduling unit, TAC per scheduling unit for an overstaffed scheduling unit, or TAC per scheduling unit for an understaffed scheduling unit, and calculating opportunity information for a calling list opportunity, a coaching opportunity, a re-allocation opportunity, or a combination thereof, based on the TAC information by calculating a percentage of an overstaffing situation addressed and a percentage of an opportunity that can be addressed; and storing the opportunities for agents as an opportunity map in a database; with a user interface operatively connected to a display component of the processor, displaying the calling list opportunity, the coaching opportunity, the re-allocation opportunity, or a combination thereof, alongside the opportunity information; with the user interface operatively connected to an input component of the processor, receiving a selection of one of the calling list opportunity, the coaching opportunity, the re-allocation opportunity, or a combination thereof; with the contact center workforce management computer system and at least one of an automatic communication distributor different from the contact center workforce management computer system, or a coaching microservice, or a schedule manager microservice, in response to the selection, automatically implementing the selected calling list opportunity, the selected coaching opportunity, the selected re-allocation opportunity, or a combination thereof; and automatically updating a status of the selected calling list opportunity, the selected coaching opportunity, the selected re-allocation opportunity, or the combination thereof in the database”. Claims 9 and 15 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1 as disclosed and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations” and “mathematical formulas or equations” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Dependent claim 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 9, and 15 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite additional elements underlined and boldened above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional elements italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element described above. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶18-19 "According to one or more embodiments, ACD 105 includes a processor, a network interface, and a memory module or database. The network interface joins ACD 105 with a local area network. Once ACD 105 receives a work item, the processor determines which of a plurality of agents should receive the work item. For example, the processor may access the memory module, which stores code executed by the processor to perform various tasks. In various embodiments, the processor includes a plurality of engines or modules. Examples of suitable engines include a distributor engine, a queue engine, and a monitor engine. The distributor engine distributes incoming work items to available agents, the queue engine monitors and maintains work items that are waiting to be connected to agents, and the monitor engine checks the status and skills of agents and stores appropriate information in the memory module.”.
As a result, claims 1, 9, and 15 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrate under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 09/01/2026
