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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a non-final office action in response to the communications received 6/22/2026. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 18, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. In the remarks, applicant argues that claim 1 does not fall within any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, and specifically not certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions or managing interactions between people since the invention operates on application usage data and screen-recording video data see the receiving and analyzing limitations of claim 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 describe obtaining performance and task data for customer support agents (where the agents are customer support including data obtained during a customer-agent interaction per [0082] of the specification, and analyzing this data to identify and make determinations about a higher performing group of agents and how they are using applications. Using this analysis, guidance is generated and sent to another group of agents. This activity reasonably falls within the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity because it involves managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Specifically, the claim limitations involve the interactions of agents and customers, and then analyzing this information to determine and provide instructions and guidance to another group of agents. Since these limitations are about agents who support customers, the activity also falls within commercial interaction - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.B. and C. It is also noted that the limitations of analyzing for statistically relevant differences by analyzing application event steams that include data, determining a delta in the slices, and determining, based on the determined at least one delta, a statistically relevant difference between the two groups falls within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as this describes using statical analysis to determine the mathematical relationship between data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.
Applicant also argues that "creating, by the one or more processors, slices of a screen recording video corresponding to overlapping portions of application events," nor the claimed step of "determining at least one delta in the slices" between the recited groups of agents does not involve managing interactions between people.
It is first noted that the amended claim language of creating, by the one or more processors, slices of a screen recording video corresponding to overlapping portions of application events is not asserted as reciting an abstract idea but rather has been treated as an additional element in the rejection below. Examiner respectfully disagrees that determining at least one delta in the slices does not fall within the recited abstract idea groupings. As discussed above and in the rejection below, this falls within the abstract idea groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts. Determining deltas is discussed in [0087] of the specification by saying deltas are determined in the video segments as a way to determine actions taken by an agent, such as using a KS test for significance between the groups. The KS test is a non-parametric statistical method used to check if a sample matches a reference distribution (one-sample) or if two samples differ significantly from each other (two-sample). It is noted that the independent claims do not include how specifically the deltas in the slices are determined.
Applicant argues that the limitations together recite a concrete computer implemented application of any alleged exception, pointing to [0087] and [0088] concerning creating video slices, determining deltas in the video segments, and then deploying guidance in near real-time or as training modules and [0142] and [0143] showing the analyze and determine are tied to configured components of an apparatus.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The question of eligibility is not merely that the invention is computer-implemented by rather whether these additional computer elements, when considering the claim as a whole and the elements alone and in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, with regard to the creating of video slices, it is agreed this is an additional element. As claimed however, creating these video slices or segments is claimed at a high level of generality and uses the computer in its ordinary capacity, noting there are limited details of how the slicing is performed in the claim. What is gathered from the slices is then used to determine a delta, which is said to be done in the specification using a KS test for significance. If there is a specific way the computer components are involved in determining this delta, it is recommended to add such limitations to the claim. Looking at [0142] and [0143], these discuss analyze and determine components with reference to figure 10. These particular paragraphs do not provide specific details and are discussed at a high level of generality. As for the deploying of guidance, while the arguments discuss aspects of [0088], this paragraph states the guidance may be deployed in near real-time or as training modules one or more agents can complete when not engaged in a customer-agent interaction. It also discusses that guidance can be sent for offline training recommendations. The claims do not include details of how the deploying occurs and so, based on the BRI, this aspect reasonably falls within the recited abstract idea. Details from [0088] should be added if Applicant would like them more specifically considered with respect to eligibility.
Applicant argues that claim 1 reflects a practical application because it applies the recited analysis in a specific technological manner through application event streams being received; a processor creating slices of a screen recording video corresponding to overlapping portions of application events; at least one delta being determined in the slices between the recited groups of agent and a statistically relevant difference being determined based on that analysis; guidance corresponding to the usage of the application being generated and deployed. It is stated this is a concrete computer-implemented workflow that improves automated agent coaching by using processor-performed analysis of application event streams and screen-recording video data to provide targeted guidance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the specification, [0082] discusses receiving of application event streams about the first set of customer-agent interactions. It is said the event streams comprise agent application usage data such as logs of actions taken on their computing device, the applications used, searches conducted, keystrokes and/or input made, sequences of events, and the like. The application event streams may be captured and stored in a data storage location for later use the automated coaching application. Thus, in the claims, the receiving of event streams is the receiving of data about previous interactions of the agent, which is viewed to be part of the recited abstract idea. If it were to be viewed as an additional element, it is currently claimed in a manner of merely receiving necessary data input and is claimed at a high level of generality. Examiner recommends adding further technical details of how the event streams are captured, received, and analyzed in order to be considered for eligibility. Further, a processor creating slices of a screen recording video; at least one delta being determined and a statistically relevant difference; and guidance being generated and deployed has been discussed in response to the arguments above. While the claims do include computers, computing devices, and apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions and one or more memories comprising instructions, and creating, by the one or more processors, slices of a screen recording video corresponding to overlapping portions of application events, these are recited at a high level of generality in the current claims and merely invoke the computer components as a tool in their ordinary capacity to complete the task of evaluating performance of agents and provide guidance to other groups of agents.
Applicant argues that creating, by the processor, slices of screen recordings and determining at least one delta in the slices, followed by generating and deploying guidance based on the resulting statistically relevant differences is not generic data collection or analysis and amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons discussed with respect to the arguments above.
It is argued that claims 3, 21, 22 meaningfully technically narrow and is a particular technical implementation, and thus are patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The comparing of images, pixel changes, and application of OCR is claimed at a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), these recite the idea of comparing the images or pixels, or applying OCR, but do not provide description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result or how the result would be accomplished. Thus, when considered alone and in combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, it does not serve to integrate abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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 1-4, 7-11, 14-15, and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite an abstract idea, specifically the claims recite limitations that fall within the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. They also involve mathematical concepts. Using claim 1 as representation, the claims recite an abstract idea:
obtaining a ranking for each agent of a plurality of agents;
obtaining a plurality of customer-agent interactions for each agent of the plurality of agents;
determining a task label for each of the plurality of customer-agent interactions;
selecting a first set of customer-agent interactions from the plurality of customer-agent interactions corresponding to a first task label;
receiving application event streams corresponding to the first set of customer-agent interactions, the application event streams comprising agent application usage data obtained during a customer-agent interaction; (noting that the obtaining of the data during the customer-agent interaction is not a positive recited method step, but rather describes the source of the data received)
analyzing the application event streams for statistically relevant differences in usage of an application by a first group of agents of the plurality of agents compared to a second group of agents of the plurality of agents during the first set of customer-agent interactions, wherein analyzing the application event streams includes determining at least one delta in the slices between the usage of the application by the first group of agents and the second group of agents, wherein the first group of agents is identified as higher performing agents compared to the second group of agents based on the ranking for each agent of the plurality of agents;
determining, based on the determined at least one delta, a statistically relevant difference in the usage of the application by the first group of agents and the second group of agents;
generating guidance corresponding to the usage of the application for the second group of agents; and
deploying the guidance to the second group of agents.
These limitations describe obtaining performance and task data for agents (where the agents are customer support agents), the data including data obtained during a customer-agent interaction per [0082] of the specification, and analyzing this data to identify and make determinations about a higher performing group of agents and how they are using applications. This is used to generate and send out guidance to another group of agents. This activity falls within managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because it involves interactions of agents and customers and also analyzing this information to determine and provide instructions and guidance to another group of agents. Since these limitations are about agents who support customers, the activity also falls within commercial interaction - advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors.
Further, the limitations of analyzing for statistically relevant differences by analyzing application event steams that include data, determining a delta in the slices, and determining, based on the determined at least one delta, a statistically relevant difference between the two groups falls within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, as this describes using statical analysis to determine the mathematical relationship between data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 include the additional elements of a computing device and apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions and one or more memories comprising instruction, and creating, by the one or more processors, slices of a screen recording video corresponding to overlapping portions of application events. However, when considering the claim as a whole and these additional elements alone and in combination, these elements are claimed at a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As currently claimed, the computers and computer components in claim 1 are invoked merely as a tool in their ordinary capacity to complete the task of evaluating performance of agents to make determinations about a higher performing group of agents and provide guidance to other groups of agents. The computing device comprising one or more processors and one or more memories do not amount to more than the words “apply it” because they recite using these tools in their general capacity. Creating, by the one or more processors, slices of a screen recording video is claimed at a high level of generality and uses the computer in its ordinary capacity to receive and collect data. The details of the time slices of video are discussed only in [0087] of the specification.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the independent claims are a computing device and apparatus comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions and one or more memories comprising instruction, and creating, by the one or more processors, slices of a screen recording video corresponding to overlapping portions of application events. For the same reasons discussed above, when considering the claim as a whole and these additional elements alone and in combination, these elements are claimed at a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As for dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20, these claims further narrow the recited abstract idea above. They do not have any further additional elements and thus do not integrate abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
As for claims 3 and 10, these claims further recite limitations that fall within the abstract idea groupings discussed above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. These claims include the further additional elements of comparing images of video segments corresponding to the slices of the screen recording video. The comparing of images is claimed at a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), it recites the idea of comparing the images but does not provide description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result or how it would be accomplished. Thus, when considered alone and in combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, it does not serve to integrate abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 4 and 11 depends from claims 3 and 10. They contain no further additional elements and thus are rejected for the same reasons presented above.
As for claim 19, this claim further recites limitations that fall within the abstract idea groupings discussed above with respect to claims 15. The claim includes the further additional element of a module. This module is claimed at a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, when considered alone and in combination with the additional elements of claim 15. Thus, it does not integrate abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
.
As for claims 21 and 23, these claims further recite limitations that fall within the abstract idea groupings discussed above with respect to claim 1 (and 3) and claim 8 (and 10). These claims include the further additional elements of comparing pixel changes in the images of video segments. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), this recites the idea of comparing the pixel changes but does not provide description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result or how it would be accomplished. Thus, when considered alone and in combination with the additional elements of the independent claims, it does not serve to integrate abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
As for claims 22 and 24, these claims further recite limitations that fall within the abstract idea groupings discussed above with respect to claim 1 (and 3) and claim 8 (and 10). These claims include the further additional elements of applying optical character recognition (OCR) to the images of a video segment. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), this is claimed at a high level of generality and as mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, when considered alone and in combination with the additional elements of claims from which it depends. Thus, it does not integrate abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pranger (US 2019/0251359) discloses video chat segments for support agents and performing emotive recognition and feedback, where training videos can be provided to improve future interactions with customers.
Lee (US 2008/0320080) discusses that in a call center environment, the audio or video for participants in an interaction are analyzed.
Arat (US 20200320365) discloses analyzing a video for cues in an interaction between a customer support agent and a customer.
Liberman (US 2011/0307258) discloses providing assistance in a contact center including capturing interactions in video segments and using OCR and providing a person participating in the interaction with guidance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights