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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on June 4, 2024, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 6 and the cancellation of claim 5.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues the need for a technical solution when an abrupt shutdown of a contact center location requires rebalancing of workload and alignment in accordance with a Business Continuity Plan, a Workforce Management application employed to balance crucial skills between locations and the implementation using cloud-based resources and providers. The Examiner acknowledges this need.
Applicant also argues that the claims do not recite judicial exceptions. Examiner disagrees. The redistribution of workload from an impacted location to alternate and/or multiple locations employs abstract ideas throughout the process. Organizing human activity in the form of following rules or instructions is prevalent throughout the claimed process. The Business Continuity Plan itself is a set of rules or instructions for what actions employees (humans) are required to perform in executing procedures to mitigate the impact of an abrupt shutdown of a contact center location. Mental processes will be applied as procedures are implemented, observing what is occurring, evaluating the actions taken and the effectiveness of procedures, using judgment in deciding what to do next and managing out of the ordinary events and occurrences, and employing their opinions in coordinating individual actions to reestablish business continuity. Each of these support the fundamental economic concepts of the business returning it to operational status to provide goods and services and generate revenue. Given the application of the judicial exceptions, the criteria for patent eligibility requires a practical application or an improvement to the technological area, most often an improvement to the functionality of a computer.
The case for a practical application for this invention is not apparent at this time. The invention appears to perform reallocation of resources to alternate target locations to reestablish critical functionality. This appears to result from the output of a computer process provided to humans to implement and execute. This does not provide the envisioned practical application. There does not appear to be evidence supporting improvement of a computer or processor in the technological environment, except for the implementation of (improved) Workforce Management software. The application of (improved) software on a processor does not constitute an improvement to the technology, but rather a case of “Apply it” as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). The absence of a practical application or improvement to the functioning of a computer prevents eligibility and therefore the request for withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is denied.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claim 4 is not rejected by prior art. Additional art enables the rejections of Applicant’s amended claims 1-3 and 6 to remain. The request to withdraw the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is denied.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-4, 6, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-4, 6, are directed to a process (method), machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-4, 6, are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of redistributing workload under dynamic conditions in a multiple location contact center.
Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: distributing workload of a working-shift of a source-location to working-shifts in target-locations, in a multiple-locations contact center, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), said method comprising:
(i) receiving a rebalancing-request and workload-information of the working-shift of the source location,
wherein said workload-information comprising: one or more source Scheduling Units
(SU)s, one or more target SUs, and percentage-allocation for each critical-skill in one
or more critical-skills, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
(ii) parsing the workload-information to extract one or more affected-SUs from the received one or more source SUs, one or more target SUs and the critical-skills; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
(iii) for each parallel time-interval in a parallel working-shift of each target-location in the target locations and for each critical-skill in the critical-skills:
a. retrieving staffing plans of the one or more target SUs, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
b. marking the parallel time-interval as overstaffed for the critical-skill based on a net-staffing calculation; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
(iv) operating agents-distribution for each parallel time-interval in the parallel working shift of each target-location and for each critical-skill in the critical-skills based on the parallel time-intervals marked as overstaffed; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
(v) to:
a. update staffing plans of parallel working-shift of each target-location in the target locations, based on the operated agents-distribution; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
b. generate new-schedules for agents in the one or more target SUs based on the updated staffing plans of parallel working-shift of each target-location in the target locations to be stored, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
c. remove existing schedules of the affected-SUs of parallel working-shift, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein said method is implemented and operated by a service provider.
Additional limitations employ the method by marking a parallel time-interval as overstaffed when a number of agents required for the parallel time interval is less than the number of agents scheduled for the parallel time interval, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 2), with agent distribution performed by distributing agents from the overstaffed time periods at the source location to the target locations for those time periods, (following rules or instructions ,observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 3), receiving a period of work-shift distribution, operating distribution of workload, and viewing successful staffing plans, (following rules or instructions ,observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 4).
Each of these claimed limitations involving organizing human activity, managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claim 6 recites similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-4.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-4, 6 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-4, 6 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a computer, a computerized-method, a staffing-database; an agents-schedules database, a Workforce Management (WFM) application, a User Interface of the WFM application, a cloud-based contact center application, and cloud computing, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-4, 6 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-4, 6 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by
Wicaksono, (US 20240412130 A1) hereafter Wicaksono, “Single Model Workload Forecasts Covering Both Longterm and Shorterm Contact Center Operating Horizons,” in view of Ouimette, (US 9426291-B1), hereafter Ouimette, “Forecasting and Scheduling Campaigns Involving Sending Outbound Communications That Generate Inbound Communications.”
Regarding Claim 1, A computerized-method for distributing workload of a working-shift of a source-location to working-shifts in target-locations via a Workforce Management (WFM) application, Wicaksono teaches (generating workload forecasts and staffing plans for contact centers, [0001], may be computer implemented using many different types of data processing equipment, [0015]), in a multiple-locations contact center, said computerized-method comprising:
(i) receiving a rebalancing-request and workload-information of the working-shift of the source location, via a User Interface (UI) of the WFM application, (a Workforce Management (WFM) solution with forecasting, hiring, and scheduling features, as well as capabilities that can balance the contact center's business needs, [0052], The [ ]
forecasting model may be configured to forecast a distribution that distributes a workload
level, [0118]),
wherein said workload-information comprising: one or more source Scheduling Units
(SU)s, one or more target SUs, and percentage-allocation for each critical-skill in one or more critical-skills, (WFM is the art of having the right number of skilled people and supporting resources in place at the right times to handle an accurately forecasted workload at the desired service level. [ ] It must take a comprehensive approach in order to balance and optimize efficiency, agent productivity and satisfaction, and customer retention and revenue growth, [0053]),
(ii) parsing the workload-information to extract one or more affected-SUs from the
received one or more source SUs, one or more target SUs and the critical-skills; Wicaksono teaches, (a continuous staffing and planning activity by fulfilling the need for staffing requirements for any scheduling or capacity planning scenarios, [0058]),
(iii) for each parallel time-interval in a parallel working-shift (Wicaksono does not teach, Ouimette teaches, (a number of shifts may be in parallel and/or overlapping
to each other during a work day and then serial relative to each other over a number of work days. In addition, the roster template may also identify in various embodiments the skills required by staff members to staff the set of shifts and any breaks and/or activities required for staff within the set of shifts, [13:19-25]), of each target-location in the target locations and for each critical-skill in the critical-skills:
a. retrieving staffing plans of the one or more target SUs from a staffing-database
that is associated to the WFM application; (The forecasted workload level for the future operating period may then be provided as an input to a staffing forecasting model, [0111]), and
b. marking the parallel time-interval as overstaffed for the critical-skill based on a
net-staffing calculation; (The staffing forecasting model may then be executed given the provide input to generate a forecasted staffing level for the future operating period, [0111]),
(iv) operating agents-distribution for each parallel time-interval in the parallel working shift of each target-location and for each critical-skill in the critical-skills based on the
parallel time-intervals marked as overstaffed; (the forecasted workload level and forecasted distribution for the future operating period may be provided as an input to a staffing forecasting model. The staffing forecasting model may be configured to convert the input of the forecasted workload level into a corresponding forecasted staffing level. The staffing forecasting model may be executed with the provided input to generate a forecasted staffing level for the contact center for the future operating period, [0128]), and
(v) configuring the WFM application to:
a. update staffing plans of parallel working-shift of each target-location in the target
locations, based on the operated agents-distribution; (the continuous timeseries workload forecast maybe updated periodically as more recent data is batched and becomes available, [0129]),
b. generate new-schedules for agents in the one or more target SUs based on the
updated staffing plans of parallel working-shift of each target-location in the target
locations to be stored in an agents-schedules database; (the method may include receiving update timeseries datasets and updating therewith each of the first and second timeseries datasets. The update timeseries datasets may include the more recently gathered data. Then, the first selection process and the second selection process may be repeated using the updated first and second timeseries datasets. In this way, new first and second forecasting models may be selected to ensure that the most effective pairing is being used given the most recently gathered data, [0129] for generating workload forecasts and staffing plans for contact centers, [0001]), and
c. remove existing schedules of the affected-SUs of parallel working-shift, from the
agents-schedules database, (The staffing forecasting model may be executed with the provided input to generate a forecasted staffing level for the contact center for the future operating period, [0128] and the staffing forecasting model may then be executed given the provide input to generate a forecasted staffing level for the future operating period, [0111]),
wherein said computerized-method is implemented in a cloud-based contact center application which is operated by a cloud computing service provider, (customer service and customer relations management via contact centers and associated cloud-based systems, [0001]).
Wicaksono and Ouimette are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of forecasting and scheduling resources under dynamic conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the workload forecasting and resource balancing techniques of Wicaksono with the roster scheduling template techniques of Ouimette so that better prediction of scheduling variables based on historical data is achieved, Ouimette, [1:19-20].
Claim 6 is rejected for reasons similar to those provided for Claim 1. In Claim 6, the addition of a computerized-system for distributing workload of a working-shift of a source-location to working-shifts in target-locations via a Workforce Management (WFM)
application, in a multiple-locations contact center, said computerized-system comprising:
one or more processors; a staffing-database that is associated to the WFM application;
an agents-schedules database; and a memory to store the plurality of databases, does not change the rational for the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 103 based on the referenced prior art. Wicaksono teaches a system that may be computer implemented using many different forms of data processing equipment, for example, digital microprocessors and associated memory, executing appropriate software programs, [0016], and in relation to the computing systems described [ ] the various servers and computer devices thereof may be located on local computing devices 100 (i.e., on-site or at the same physical location as contact center agents), remote computing devices 100 (i.e., off-site or in a cloud computing environment, for example, in a remote data center connected to the contact center via a network), or some combination thereof, [0017].
Regarding claim 2, The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein the parallel time-interval is marked as overstaffed for the critical-skill based on net-staffing calculation when a number of agents having the critical-skill, that is required for the parallel time-interval is lower than a number of agents having the critical-skill, scheduled for the parallel time-interval. Wicaksono does not teach, Ouimette teaches, (Turning to FIG. 11, a table is provided showing a surplus or deficiency of allocated resources foreach time interval for handling the expected inbound calls based on scheduling seven agents for the morning shift and ten agents for the afternoon shift. Accordingly, seventeen agents are scheduled to work from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. since the two shifts overlap during this time. In this instance, deficiencies exists during the 9:45 a.m. (−6 1110), 11:45 a.m. (−6 1115), 12:00 p.m. (−1 1120), 3:30p.m. (−2 1125), 5:45 p.m. (−9 1130), 7:30 p.m. (−6 1135), and 7:45 p.m. (−5 1140) time intervals because the number of agents scheduled to work do not meet the number of agents needed to handle the number of calls forecasted to be received during these time intervals. The deficiencies represent the number of agents understaffed for the particular time interval, [39:42-56]).
Wicaksono and Ouimette are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of forecasting and scheduling resources under dynamic conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the workload forecasting and resource balancing techniques of Wicaksono with the roster scheduling template techniques of Ouimette so that better prediction of scheduling variables based on historical data is achieved, Ouimette, [1:19-20].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by
Wicaksono, (US 20240412130 A1) hereafter Wicaksono, “Single Model Workload Forecasts Covering Both Longterm and Shorterm Contact Center Operating Horizons,” in view of Hansen, (US 20070153996 A1), hereafter Hansen, “Distributing Transactions Among Transaction Processing Systems,”
Regarding claim 3, The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein the operating of the agents distribution is performed by distributing agents based on the percentage allocation of the critical-skill and agents having the critical-skill which are scheduled to the working-shift of
the source-location, between one or more parallel time-intervals marked as overstaffed for the critical-skill, for each parallel time-interval in the parallel working-shift of each target location and for each critical-skill in the critical-skills. Wicaksono does not teach, Hansen teaches, (The organization's transaction routing controller provides a routing decision to the SCP based upon real-time data collected from the organization's call centers, including handling resources (e.g., agents) at each center, call load, skills, and agent availability, [0017], allocation routing refers to a mechanism that distributes calls to call centers according to preset percentage allocations associated with each of an organization's call centers for the current time segment (typically a 15 to 30 minute interval). Briefly, based upon scheduled staffing levels, historical call data (e.g., call volume, average handle time), and the desired service quality for each call center, percent allocations for one or more future time segments are generated for the call centers and uploaded to the carrier network, [0018]).
Wicaksono and Hansen are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of forecasting and scheduling resources under dynamic conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the workload forecasting and resource balancing techniques of Wicaksono with the resource allocation of Hansen to distribute transactions among the plurality of transaction processing systems by producing routing decisions based upon the determined transaction allocations and the scheduled handling resources, [0006].
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.
7. Claim 4 is not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The closest prior art to the invention includes Wicaksono (US-20240412130-A1), “ Systems and Methods for Multi-User Virtual Reality Remote Training,” and Hansen, (US-20070153996-A1), “Distributing Transactions Among Transaction Processing Systems.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding claim 4, The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein said computerized-method is further comprising:
(i) receiving a period for work-shifts distribution of the source-location via the UI of the WFM application; Hansen teaches allocation routing, a mechanism for distributing calls according to preset percentage allocations.
(ii) operating distribution of workload of each working-shift in a plurality of working shifts of the source-location to parallel working-shifts in the target-locations during the received period; Wicaksono teaches leveraging an intelligent workload distribution among available chat resources and may implement manage and facilitate user interfaces with the chat features, [0040].
(iii) displaying via the UI of the WFM application a link to a file with details of each
staffing plan of each working-shift of the source-location and related status as succeeded. Neither Wicaksono or Hansen teach linking to a file of a successful working-shift of the source-location.
These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624