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
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 18, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-17, and 20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that claim 1 does not recite a mathematical concept because "A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 discloses “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”. ¶23 and ¶58-73 of the specification further defines AAI, TAC and Net Staffing Data as equations, therefore the claim remains a mathematical concept.
The applicant asserts that claim 1 does not recite an abstract concept because "not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018)". To a certain extent, of course, every activity can be considered a method of organizing human activity. However, claim 1 does not recite "fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions," or "managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people". The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear to the examiner how Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V. supports applicant’s arguments since the Circuit Judges affirmed the PTAB and therefore the examiner’s rationale. For instance, in its brief, Appellant contends that the Patent Office uses a certain label—methods of organizing human activities—as a “catch-all abstract idea” and expresses concern that the Board has used the phrase improperly as an “apparent shortcut.” Appellant Op. Br. 16. We agree that this phrase can be confusing and potentially misused, since, after all, a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation could be categorized as a method of organizing human activity. Here, however, where the Patent Office further articulates a more refined characterization of the abstract idea (e.g., “rules for playing games”), there is no error in also observing that the claimed abstract idea is one type of method of organizing human activity. In sum, we agree with the Board that Appellant’s claims are directed to the abstract idea of “rules for playing a dice game.” This is similar to the instant application where the claims disclose a computerized workforce management computer system that gathers data, analyzes data, in order to update the status of the selected calling list opportunity or selected workers for a shift. This remains managing human behavior, an abstract idea.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 recites a particular machine that is integral to the claim. For example, the apparatus of claim 1 explicitly requires a contact center workforce management computer system, a reverse opportunity calculator microservice, a user interface, an automatic communication distributor, a coaching microservice, and a schedule manager microservice, each of which would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a particular machine, and the combination of which also forms a particular machine that is not a generic computer nor replaceable by a generic computer. Practice of any potential judicial exception requires and relies upon the particular machines recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no disclosure of a special purpose computer, in fact ¶32 discloses that Fig. 2 illustrates an exemplary architecture of reverse opportunity calculator 115. As part of the present methods, a new microservice is deployed, which is powered, in an exemplary embodiment, by Amazon Web Services Elastic Compute Cloud (AWS EC2) infrastructure. The microservice is backed up by the Aurora Relational Database Service (RDS) database 201, which stores the information about the opportunities calculated. Overall, the microservice provides three (3) application program interfaces (APIs). This paragraph discloses the use of commercially available services such as AWS infrastructure. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant asserts that claim 1 integrates any potential judicial exception into a practical application because the recited elements reflect an improvement to a technical field and the functioning of the computer itself. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously shown, the applicant is relying on commercially available products provided by AWS. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, 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.
Applicant asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized this combination of elements as an improvement in user interfaces and therefore in the functioning of the computer. This is even more true of claim 7, which recites dynamic recalculation, re-display, and re-implementation of the opportunity information. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Dependent claim 7 follows a similar fact pattern of Claim 1 once updated data is received. Essentially, it is performing the same steps with new/additional data. There is no improvement to the UI in the claims as suggested by the applicant.
Applicant asserts that claim 1 is also eligible under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. In this regard, claim 1 recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the exception itself. For instance, claim 1 reflects an improvement to a technical field such that the claims are also patent eligible under at least under Step 2B. Second, claim 1 is eligible under Step 2B because it recites a combination of features that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field,11 because the combination of the steps (e.g., operations within and surrounding the reverse opportunity calculator microservice) operates in a non-conventional and non-generic way to optimize the utilization of agents within the contact center (see Present Application, ¶21). Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this combination of elements is not well-understood, routine, or conventional, as evidenced by the lack of an art-based rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 amounts 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. That said, 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.
The applicant asserts that claim 1 is also similar to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Example 2, Claim 19; Example 23, Claim l; and Example 37, Claims 1-2, in that "the computer's ability to display information and interact with the user is improved." The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in the various examples cited by the applicant were found to be eligible because they were directed to addressing a technical problem specifically arising in the realm of technology, particularly organization of automatically displaying content, which provides a specific improvement over prior system and results in an improved user interface as it relates to Example 37. 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 37 disclosing a UI, then adding a limitation that recites UI will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is 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 37, the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Example 37 provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern. 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 therefor, 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 reflects 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 integrated 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. 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).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 03/06/2026