DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the remarks filed 05 November 2025.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
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 .
Response to Remarks
Regarding 35 USC § 101, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the claims are directed to methods and systems for a cloud-based, intelligent and interactive virtual container based customer service platform, not just a business or contractual arrangement.” Remarks at 10. As an initial matter, the claims were placed into the “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” sub-grouping, not the “commercial or legal interactions” (which would include the argued business or contractual arrangements) sub-grouping, within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) discusses this “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” sub-grouping. The present claims recite a system and method for allowing an agent and customer to communicate in order to address the customer service issue of the customer. This is considered managing interactions between people. The claims do not merely involve this concept, they clearly recite it. Even the inclusion of limitations such as “cloud computing” or the use of a “container” does not prevent the claims from being placed in an abstract idea grouping. Applicant does not provide a persuasive argument as to why the claims do not recite managing interactions between people.
Applicant argues that the “method does not merely utilize generic computer components to execute an abstract idea. Instead, the claims recite a concrete integration into a technical process for cloud-based, intelligent customer service platforms.” Remarks at 10. A “technical process” alone is not enough to provide a practical application. Rather, one avenue to a practical application is a technical solution to a technical problem. As Applicant argues, the claim comprises one or more servers and a plurality of databases. These are generic computer components and are not performing activities outside of generic computer activities. Applicant argues that the “claim requires opening and closing support tickets and closing customer service containers in response to closed support tickets, which is a technical mechanism for [….]” Id. Applicant does not provide support for a conclusion that these activities are a technical improvement. Applicant also argues that the “customer services center secures data in secure storage implemented by a processor and a memory.” Id. A processor, not currently recited in the claims, would not be providing a technical solution to a technical problem by securing data in storage, as this is an ordinary processor activity. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “Office Action provides no evidence that such a configuration is well-understood, routine, or conventional.” Remarks at 11. MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) discusses relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements amount to an inventive concept. When the additional elements do no more than merely implement the abstract idea using the additional elements, a determination of well-understood, routine, or conventional need not be made. That is, the well-understood, routine, and conventional analysis is not required where the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea, as is the case with the present claims.
Applicant argues that “to the extent the Examiner continues to view eligibility as a close call, the Office’s own guidance directs that the § 101 rejection be withdrawn.” Remarks at 11. Examiner has not and does not view the eligibility as a close call for the claims as presently presented. The claims remain rejected, as shown below.
Regarding 35 USC § 102, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Dwyer is still considered the closets prior art for the present claims. However, neither Dwyer nor any obvious combination of references teaches all of the claim limitations. The rejections are withdrawn.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 recite a system which is considered a machine or manufacture. Claims 10-17 recite a method which is considered a process.
Step 2A-Prong One
The claims recite the concept of providing service to a customer by an agent relating to a customer service issue (see “selecting by a routing engine of a customer service center, a first agent, from a plurality of customer service agents, to address a customer service issue of a customer, wherein the routing engine is for selecting the first agent in response to an incoming communication, via an electronic data network, from a customer device associated with the customer, and wherein the first agent is associated with a first agent device; serving, by the customer service center, data to both the customer device and the first agent device, for the customer device and the first agent device to each display visually, a customer service container for the customer device and the ft agent device to communicate with the first agent to address the customer service issue of the customer; wherein the customer service container comprises, and displays visually for the customer and the first agent: communications between the customer device and the first agent device in multiple possible communication media formats, wherein the multiple possible communication media formats comprise text, audio and video; support ticket information for the customer service issue of the customer, wherein a support ticket is opened by the customer service center when the customer raises a new customer service issue and the support ticket is closed when the customer service issue of the customer is resolved; and customer relationship management (CRM) data for the customer; closing, by the customer service center, the customer service container when the support ticket for the customer service issue of the customer is closed; and storing, by the customer service center: in a media database of the customer service center, media files for media used in the communications between the customer and the first agent; in a structured data database of the customer service center, container meta data for the customer service container and CRM data for the customer; and in an unstructured data database of the customer service center, message data from messages between the customer and the first agent, wherein the message data comprises comprise searchable text” in claim 10, for example). This concept falls into the certain methods or organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). Thus, claims 1-17 recite an abstract idea.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer component does not take the claim limitations out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a system comprising a customer service center that comprises one or more servers and a plurality of databases, a customer device, and a first agent device (claims 1-9) or a customer service center (claims 10-17) and includes no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The system or center does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A-Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea). The claims are ineligible.
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 MEREDITH A LONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. 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.
/MEREDITH A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622