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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on March 02, 2026, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly added limitations in the newly amended claims the newly added claims. The newly amended claims with the newly added limitations and the newly added claims are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Applicant’s arguments regarding §101 rejection have been considered but examiner respectfully disagrees.
The main concept of the claims is towards supervising agents/employees/workers by monitoring abstract information (e.g. call data, type of call, duration of call, availability of the agent/worker, and actions used by the agent for a specific call, and client data) regarding the agents/employees/workers. The information/parameters gathered/collected to make the determination as all non-technical abstract information. The information is analyzed/organized and manipulated/calculated (also mathematically using statistics with probability values). Overall, the amended independent claims and the newly added claims recite, as stated before, accessing/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. agent/worker information, performance type information, call data, problems, scores, transcribed information of calls, etc.,), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more data (supervising, analyzing, comparing, thresholds determination and comparisons, scoring, strategizing, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis/monitoring and decision-making. There is no improvement shown in the claims to any technology, technical elements/devices, or any technical environment. The added machine learning models are generically states without any technical details on what they are and how they work with regards to Applicant’s abstract concept of supervising and monitoring agents/employees/workers/etc. The amended independent claims (1, 9) and the newly added claims (17-20) under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. supervisors/managers and agents/workers) in a workplace setting following rules or instructions) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation/monitoring and evaluation of workers/agents). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (statistical analysis, etc.,) to analyze and determine further data. The technical elements (discussed below) and the machine learning models the Applicant has in the claims just point to generic/general purpose technical elements used in an “apply-it” fashion while no improvement to the technical environment itself or any technical element/device/component/computer is shown. The interface discussed (with cells) is just a depiction/presentation to a user (which the user can manipulate) and does not impact any technical environment or any technology. The actual display or GUI is generic/general-purpose and used in an “apply-it” fashion. Hence, Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping and the claims.
Additionally, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the above judicial exception/abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Applicant’s abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16), the claims encompass the above state abstract idea. As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing components/elements/devices/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer and computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). Applicant’s claims show no technical improvement to computer functionality (or any other technical functionality) and no improvement to any technical environment. And the courts have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform itself. See Ancora Techs. Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., 908 F.3d 1343, 1347–49 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The CAFC has consistently stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool. For example, in Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, the CAFC held that claims to a method of providing out-of-region access to regional broadcasts were directed to an abstract idea. 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The CAFC determined the claims were not a patent-eligible improvement in computer functionality because they simply used cellular telephones “as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.” Id. at 1262; see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims reciting concrete physical components merely as “a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.” The U.S. Supreme Court has described “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. As the courts have explained, “[t]he Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability,” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). And, although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id. Moreover, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the [Alice/Mayo] framework . . ., preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert, denied, 136 S. Ct. 701 (2015)(“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Further, Appellant’s claims are different from those claims that the Courts have found to be patent eligible by virtue of reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1249, 1257 (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving “composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many benefits were patent eligible). In McRO1, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques” through the “use [of] limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allowed computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators; and the rules were limiting because they defined morph weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The present situation is not like the one in McRO where computers had been unable to make certain subjective determinations, e.g., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which could only be made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. The Background section of one of the patents at issue in McRO, Rosenfeld (US Patent 6,307,576 B1; issued Oct. 23, 2001), includes a description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303-06. There is no comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record. Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique claimed was “[groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass ’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). Applicant’s claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”’ (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 593 (1978))).
The generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/terms/limitations (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)) are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers, models, and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Against this background, Applicant’s claims are not directed to a practical application and are not patent eligible as they remain an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Furthermore, under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05), the recitations of the core inventive steps amount to little more than reciting that the computer system applies the abstract idea. Applicant’s claims are clearly focused on the combination of the above stated abstract-idea processes (see discussion above and in the rejection below) and not any particular assuredly inventive technology for performing those functions. Applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic computing devices and software (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)). Applicant’s claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea and do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The core limitations of the independent claims and dependent claims require no more than the above listed known and/or generic computing devices and software functions and, without more, this is insufficient to transform them into patent-eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 2360; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figs. 17-18 ¶¶ 0041-0044 and 0083-0088 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0093-0098 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. Applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements or combination of elements in the independent claims and dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims and dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, Applicant’s claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Also see the §101 rejection below.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-8 are directed to a system (i.e. machine) and claims 9-16 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 9) and dependent claims (2-8, 10-16) recite accessing/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. agent/worker information, performance type information, call data, problems, scores, transcribed information of calls, etc.,), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more data (supervising, analyzing, comparing, thresholds determination and comparisons, scoring, strategizing, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis/monitoring and decision-making. The limitations of independent claims (1, 9) and dependent claims (2-8, 10-16), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. supervisors/managers and agents/workers) in a workplace setting following rules or instructions) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation/monitoring and evaluation of workers/agents). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (and in this case it’s just evaluation and opinion of forecasting using ML techniques without stating any specific novel ML algorithms and techniques), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers/processors and/or computing components/elements/devices/etc., for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16) in the context of the independent claims (1, 9) and dependent claims (2-8, 10-16-20), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. supervisors/managers and agents/workers) in a workplace setting following rules or instructions) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation/monitoring and evaluation of workers/agents)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers/processors and/or computing components/elements/devices/etc., (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computers/processors and/or computing components/elements/devices/etc., terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc., (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 9) and dependent claims (2-8, 10-16-20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers/processors and/or computing components/elements/devices/etc., and software (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0041-0044 and 0083-0088 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0093-0098 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. Applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, Applicant’s claims does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary (see rejection above for full details), the dependent claims (2-8, 10-20) further state using obtained/accessed/received data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data/information analysis and manipulation to determine more data (supervising, analyzing, comparing, thresholds determination and comparisons, scoring, strategizing, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis/monitoring and decision-making. These claims are directed towards organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. supervisors/managers and agents/workers) in a workplace setting following rules or instructions) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation/monitoring and evaluation of workers/agents). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite known and/or generic/general-purpose computers/processors and/or computing components/elements/devices/etc., and software (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements (for example, systems, interfaces (graphical user interface), workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, machine learning, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 17-20); interfaces, workstations, servers, databases, memories, program modules (software), processors, modules, transmitting/communicating using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, signals, graphical display, etc., (in Independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-16)) either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection above
Prior art discussion (not a prior art rejection – but claims remain rejections under §101)
As per the independent claim 1 and 9 the closet prior art are Dwyer et al., (US 2015/0195406) and Anwade et al., (US 2025/0200491).
However, neither Dwyer nor Anwade specifically disclose the independent claims’ (1, 9) combined limitations of transforming the call data into the call data set, wherein the call data set includes a plurality of features and attributes; analyzing, via a problem detection module having a first machine learning model at the server, the call data set and generating a plurality of problem profiles each associated with a probability value; analyzing, via an action profile module having a second machine learning model distinct from the first machine learning model, the selected problem profile provided as an input feature to the second machine learning model to determine a plurality of actions for the selected problem profile; generating a plurality of action profiles for the selected problem profile based on the analysis of the action profile module and conditioned on the selected problem profile; analyzing, via a strategy scoring module at the server, the problem profiles and the action profiles and generating a plurality of thresholds for the action profiles and the problem profiles; selecting, by a problem profile manager at the server, upon the system receiving a new call, at least one problem profile based on comparison of the associated probability values to at least one predefined threshold during the call. Additionally, given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant's Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant's current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole - limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625