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 Claims
This is a Final Action on the merits in response to the claims filed on 11/25/2025.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, 14 – 15, and 17 – 20 have been amended.
Claims 5 – 6, 12 – 13, and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 21 – 24, are new claims.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, 14 – 15, and 17 – 24 are pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks:
Response to Discussion of Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Discussion of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response to Discussion of Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites observing a ranking for each agent of a plurality of agents; observing a plurality of customer-agent interactions for each agent of the plurality of agents; evaluating a task label for each of the plurality of customer-agent interactions; observing a first set of customer-agent interactions from the plurality of customer-agent interactions corresponding to a first task label; evaluating for statistically relevant differences 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 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; evaluating a statistically relevant difference by the first group of agents and the second group of agents; evaluating guidance corresponding for the second group of agents; and deploying the guidance to the second group of agents. However, claim 1 merely recites commercial interactions where the claim involves business relations and managing interactions between people. Accordingly claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
The additional elements recited are 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, usage of an application, wherein analyzing the application event streams include analyzing time slices of a screen recording video of the usage of the application by the first group of agents and the second group of agents, and based on analyzing the application event streams, apparatus, one or more memories, and one or more processors, pixel changes in the images of video segments; and based on applying optical character recognition (OCR) to the images of video segment of the second group of agents. However, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as the claim merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception and uses the computer as a tool to perform generic computer functions by collecting interaction data, analyzing and processing the data and transmitting the data. There is no improvement to the computer here, as the claim uses the computer to resolve a business problem that involves customer-agent interaction. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected by virtue of depending on the independent claims. Accordingly, all pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Discussion of Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant argues the amended claim1 is not obvious over cited references because Examiner’s references fail to teach the claimed subject matter.
Examiner’s finds Applicant’s arguments persuasive; and that Tapuhi, Tamir et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0096617) in view of Conway, Kelly et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0265090) fail alone and in combination to teach all of Applicant’s independent claims. For example, of claim 1, Examiner’s cited art does not teach “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 include analyzing time slices of a screen recording video of 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;” and Examiner’s cited art does not teach “determining, based on analyzing the application event streams, a statistically relevant difference in the usage of the application by the first group of agents and the second group of agents.” Accordingly, rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §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 towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15:
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;
analyzing for statistically relevant differences 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 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, a statistically relevant difference by the first group of agents and the second group of agents;
generating guidance for the second group of agents; and
deploying the guidance to the second group of agents.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea, certain methods of organizing human activity. Particularly, claim 1 recites commercial interactions where the claim involves business relations and managing interactions between people. For example, the claim recites observing a ranking for each agent of a plurality of agents; observing a plurality of customer-agent interactions for each agent of the plurality of agents; evaluating a task label for each of the plurality of customer-agent interactions; observing a first set of customer-agent interactions from the plurality of customer-agent interactions corresponding to a first task label; evaluating for statistically relevant differences 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 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; evaluating a statistically relevant difference by the first group of agents and the second group of agents; evaluating guidance corresponding for the second group of agents; and deploying the guidance to the second group of agents all involve a company or customer support services managing interactions between customers and agents and coaching for business relations. Claims 8 and 15 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract idea as well. For instance, claims 2, 9, and 17, are directed towards observing wherein the first group of agents corresponds to one or more agents of the plurality of agents having the ranking above a first threshold and the second group of agents corresponds to one or more agents of the plurality of agents having then ranking below a second threshold; claims 3 and 10, are directed towards analyzing the application event streams for statistically relevant differences further includes comparing images of video segments corresponding to the time slices of the screen recording video of the first group of agents and the second group of agents to determine a difference in a time spent least one feature is deployed to an agent of the second group of agents in near real-time during a customer-agent interaction; claims 21 and 23 are directed towards observing the difference in the time spent between the first group of agents and the second group of agents is determined by comparing pixel changes in the images of video segments between the first group of agents and the second group of agents; and claims 22 and 24 are directed towards evaluating a feature for which guidance is to be provided to the second group of agents based on applying optical character recognition (OCR) to the images of video segment of the second group of agents. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract idea.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the
additional elements of 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, usage of an application, wherein analyzing the application event streams include analyzing time slices of a screen recording video of the usage of the application by the first group of agents and the second group of agents, and based on analyzing the application event streams; in addition to reciting the additional elements of claim 1, claim 8 recites the additional elements of an apparatus, one or more memories, and one or more processors; and claim 15 recites the same additional elements of claim 1. However, the additional elements of 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, usage of an application, wherein analyzing the application event streams include analyzing time slices of a screen recording video of the usage of the application by the first group of agents and the second group of agents, and based on analyzing the application event streams, apparatus, one or more memories, and one or more processors, pixel changes in the images of video segments; and based on applying optical character recognition (OCR) to the images of video segment of the second group of agents. However, these are all generic computer components performing generic computer functions as per Applicant’s Specification shown below:
“[0135] Apparatus 1000 further includes input(s) and output(s) 1006, which generally provide means for providing data to and from apparatus 1000, such as via connection to computing device peripherals, including user interface peripherals.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). The combination of these additional elements are no more
than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). The
claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial
exception, as the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application
because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea, and amount to no
more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive
concept. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 – 4, 7, 9 – 11, 14, and 17 – 24, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that
is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide
instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements
of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that
the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11, 14 – 15, and 17 – 24, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference DeFilippo, Alec et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0365861) discloses methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for automating actions based on ranked work events.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The Examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. Examiner can be reached via Fax at 571-483-7338.
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 Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
03/25/2026
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625