DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 03/07/2024 and the preliminary amendment filed 06/24/2024.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements (filed 06/11/2024) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 03/07/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The cross reference related to the application cited in the specification must be updated (i.e., update the relevant status, with PTO serial numbers or patent numbers where appropriate). Correction is required.
Examiner’s Note
5. The following set of rejections regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are based upon the examiner’s interpretation of “and/or” equal “or”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding independent claim 9, the claim recites “a task assignment system”. However, as currently recited the “task assignment system” comprises only computer software components. Thus, the claim is software per se and does not fall within any of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter in section 101.
Accordingly, claim 9 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 9, claims 10-15 fall outside the scope of § 101.
Applicant is advised to amend the claims to include a hardware element (i.e., a processor and/or memory) in order to overcome the 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmarking performance of the first and second pairing strategies” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a task assignment system with an external pairing system, wherein the task assignment system comprises an internal pairing system and a switch that is communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system and the external pairing system” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “obtaining a benchmark flag which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does 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 of “a task assignment system with an external pairing system, wherein the task assignment system comprises an internal pairing system and a switch that is communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system and the external pairing system” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “obtaining a benchmark flag which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information does not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the benchmark flag is capable of indicating whether the certain task is any one of: i) the first type of task, ii) the second type of task, and iii) the third type of task and/or the fourth type of task” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the third type of task is a task which was paired by the internal pairing system and which should have been paired by the external pairing system” merely defines the task being received, thus amounts to gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “the third type of task is caused by an unintentional error or failure in the task assignment system” merely defines the task being received, thus amounts to gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “the benchmark flag indicates that the certain task is the third type of task, and benchmarking performance of the first and second pairing strategies comprises excluding a result of pairing of the certain task with an agent based on the indication that the certain task is the third type of task” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the fourth type of task is a task which was paired by the internal pairing system and which should have been paired by the internal pairing system” merely defines the task being received, thus amounts to gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the fourth type of task is for the external pairing system to build a pairing strategy or a pairing model” merely defines the task being received, thus amounts to gathering data which is insignificant extra solution activity Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmark performance of the first and second pairing strategies” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a task assignment system provided with an external pairing system, the task assignment system comprising: an internal pairing system; an external pairing system; and a switch that is communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “obtain a benchmark flag which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task, based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmark performance of the first and second pairing strategies” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does 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 of “a task assignment system provided with an external pairing system, the task assignment system comprising: an internal pairing system; an external pairing system; and a switch that is communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “obtain a benchmark flag which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task, based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmark performance of the first and second pairing strategies” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information does not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 10-15, they correspond to claims 3-8. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmark performance of the first and second pairing strategies” as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “an article of manufacture comprising: a non-transitory computer processor readable medium; and instructions stored on the non-transitory computer processor readable medium, wherein the instructions are configured to be readable from the medium by at least one computer processor in a task assignment system which comprises an internal pairing system and which is provided with an external pairing system, and thereby cause said at least one computer processor to operate so as to” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and “obtain a benchmark flag which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task, based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmark performance of the first and second pairing strategies” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claim does 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 of “a task assignment system provided with an external pairing system, the task assignment system comprising: an internal pairing system; an external pairing system; and a switch that is communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and for the limitations “obtain a benchmark flag which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task, based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmark performance of the first and second pairing strategies” the courts have identified mere data/information gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely gathering data/information does not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 17-21, they correspond to claims 3-7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chishti (US 9712676).
The Chishti reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 06/11/2024.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 2:
Chishti teaches a method for operating a task assignment system with an external pairing system, wherein the task assignment system comprises an internal pairing system and a switch that is communicatively coupled to the internal pairing system and the external pairing system (Col.3, line 65-Col.4, line 63: algorithmically assigns contacts arriving at the contact center to agents available to handle those contacts… a highest-performing-agent pairing strategy… a highest-performing-agent-for-contact-type pairing strategy… Some contact centers may use a variety of other possible pairing strategies. For example, in a longest-available agent pairing strategy, an agent may be selected who has been waiting (idle) the longest time since the agent's most recent contact interaction (e.g., call) has ended. In a least-occupied agent pairing strategy, an agent may be selected who has the lowest ratio of contact interaction time to waiting or idle time (e.g., time spent on calls versus time spent off calls). In a fewest-contact-interactions-taken-by-agent pairing strategy, an agent may be selected who has the fewest total contact interactions or calls. In a randomly-selected-agent pairing strategy, an available agent may be selected at random (e.g., using a pseudorandom number generator). In a sequentially-labeled-agent pairing strategy, agents may be labeled sequentially, and the available agent with the next label in sequence may be selected; see also, Figs. 1A-2B and 6 ) , the method comprising:
obtaining a benchmark flag (Col.6, lines 5-10: By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR). In this way, the relative performance of one strategy may be benchmarked against the other) which indicates that a certain task is one of a first type of task, a second type of task, a third type of task, or a fourth type of task, wherein the first type of task is a task that was paired by the external pairing system, using a first pairing strategy which is available at the external pairing system and which is not available at the internal pairing system, the second type of task is a task that was paired by either the internal pairing system or the external pairing system, using a second pairing strategy which is different from the first pairing strategy and which is available at the internal pairing system and/or the external pairing system, the third type of task that is different from the first type of task and the second type of task, and the fourth type of task that is different from the first type of task, the second type of task, and the third type of task (Col.5, line 65-Col.6, line 13: a contact center may switch (or “cycle”) periodically among at least two different pairing strategies (e.g., between FIFO and PBR; between PBR and BP; among FIFO, PBR, and BP). Additionally, the outcome of each contact-agent interaction may be recorded along with an identification of which pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO, PBR, or BP) had been used to assign that particular contact-agent pair. By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR). In this way, the relative performance of one strategy may be benchmarked against the other. The contact center may, over many periods of switching between different pairing strategies, more reliably attribute performance gain to one strategy or the other; Col.10, line 31-Col.11, line 32: the contact center may determine which pairing strategy to use based on the time at which a contact arrives. For example, assume a contact center is benchmarking BP and FIFO as in the preceding example. If the first contact arrives at 9:04 AM, the time of arrival falls in the first half of a period, so the BP strategy may be used for the contact. Even if the first contact must wait in a queue for two minutes, and the pairing is not requested until 9:06 AM, the pairing may still be made using the BP strategy. Moreover, if a second contact arrives at 9:05 AM, while the first contact is still waiting in queue, the second contact may be designated for FIFO pairing. Consequently, at 9:06 AM, contact choice under behavioral pairing may be limited to only the contacts in queue who arrived during the BP portion of the period and, in this example, only the first contact to arrive would be available... contacts may be sequentially designated according to a particular period. For example, the first five (or ten, or twenty, etc.) contacts may be designated for a FIFO strategy, and the next five (or ten, or twenty, etc.) may be designated for a BP strategy. Other percentages and proportions may also be used, such as 60% (or 80%, etc.) paired with a BP strategy and the other 40% (or 20%, etc.) paired with a FIFO strategy... the determination of whether a repeat contact should be designated for the same (or different) pairing strategy may depend on other factors. For example, there may be a time limit, such that the contact must return to the contact center within a specified time period for prior pairing strategies to be considered (e.g., within an hour, within a day, within a week)),
based at least on the benchmark flag, benchmarking performance of the first and second pairing strategies (Col.5, line 65-Col.6, line 13: By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR). In this way, the relative performance of one strategy may be benchmarked against the other. The contact center may, over many periods of switching between different pairing strategies, more reliably attribute performance gain to one strategy or the other; Col.16, lines 14-41: benchmarking may be performed for two or more pairing strategies. FIGS. 7A and 7B depict examples of benchmarking systems for three pairing strategies (e.g., benchmarking FIFO, PBR, and BP). a contact center may switch (or “cycle”) periodically among at least two different pairing strategies (e.g., between FIFO and PBR; between PBR and BP; among FIFO, PBR, and BP). Additionally, the outcome of each contact-agent interaction may be recorded along with an identification of which pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO, PBR, or BP) had been used to assign that particular contact-agent pair. By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR). In this way, the relative performance of one strategy may be benchmarked against the other. The contact center may, over many periods of switching between different pairing strategies, more reliably attribute performance gain to one strategy or the other).
As to claim 3:
Chishti teaches the benchmark flag is capable of indicating whether the certain task is any one of: i) the first type of task, ii) the second type of task, and iii) the third type of task and/or the fourth type of task (Col.5, line 65-Col.6, line 13 and Col.10, line 31-Col.11, line 32).
As to claim 4:
Chishti teaches the third type of task is a task which was paired by the internal pairing system and which should have been paired by the external pairing system (Col.4, lines 48-63).
As to claim 5:
Chishti teaches the third type of task is caused by an unintentional error or failure in the task assignment system (Col.13, line 66- Col.14, line 19).
As to claim 6:
Chishti teaches the benchmark flag indicates that the certain task is the third type of task, and benchmarking performance of the first and second pairing strategies comprises excluding a result of pairing of the certain task with an agent based on the indication that the certain task is the third type of task (Col.16, lines 51-67).
As to claim 7:
Chishti teaches the fourth type of task is a task which was paired by the internal pairing system and which should have been paired by the internal pairing system (Col.2, lines 41-56).
As to claim 8:
Chishti teaches the fourth type of task is for the external pairing system to build a pairing strategy or a pairing model (Col.4, line 64-Col.6, line 18: pairing strategies; Col.15, lines 49-57: pairing modules).
As to claims 9-15:
Refer to the discussion of claims 2-8 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 9-15 are the same as claims 2-8, except claims 9-15 are system claims and claims 2-8 are method claims.
As to claims 16-21:
Refer to the discussion of claims 2-7 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 16-21 are the same as claims 2-7, except claims 16-21 are article of manufacture claims and claims 2-7 are method claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199