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
The Amendment filed on April 3, 2026 has been entered. The examiner notes that there
are no amendments to the claims.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues a claimed practical application, to include computing overstaffed parallel time-intervals, operating an agents-distribution based on the intervals, and reconfiguring existing schedules and generating and storing new schedules. The Examiner notes that although these are sound practices for execution of a Business Continuity Plan (BCP), the mechanisms employed as stated in the claims do not fall within the confines of subject matter eligibility for patenting.
MPEP 2106.04(d) states that an additional element may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application when there are indications of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology, using a judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, or applying the exception in another meaningful way beyond linking to a particular technological environment.
In the present case, software deployed on a processor rebalances workload and resources in response to a disruption to normal operations. Information is processed and new schedules and assignments generated to ensure operational continuity and re-optimize as possible. The additional elements are routine and expected components of an information processing system. There is no particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim, and no other application of the exception in a meaningful way beyond the linkage to the BCP or workflow management environment. The method described in claim 1 recites functions that would be expected to occur in the event of an outage to a facility. There are no indications of a new or unique application of new thought, innovation, or novel employment of existing components. In a non-automated environment, each of these functions would be expected to be executed by managers (humans) as part of assigned duties. The value that automation provides in speeding up the process and enabling larger volumes of processing will not be disputed, but the automation in and of itself does not meet the criteria for a practical application, and as a result, the request to withdraw the rejections under 35 U.S.C § 101 is denied.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments claim that the combination of prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed “overstaffed parallel time-interval” determination and redistribution workflow as claimed, to include the marking of the parallel time-interval as overstaffed for the critical-skill based on a net-staffing calculation and using those intervals to operate agents distribution across locations followed by updating staffing plans. Although prior art conducts workflow analysis to include adjusting resources commensurate with demand, it does not follow the procedure of the claimed invention. In view of this, the Examiner finds the arguments compelling and withdraws rejections to independent claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. By nature of their dependency on the independent claims, claims 2-3 are similarly not rejected. Claim 4 was not rejected during the previous phase of examination.
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, 6 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: 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 6 are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-3
are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, and 6. Claim 4 was previously not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Wicaksono, (US 20240412130 A1) “Single Model Workload Forecasts Covering Both Longterm and Shorterm Contact Center Operating Horizons,” and Ouimette, (US 9426291-B1), “Forecasting and Scheduling Campaigns Involving Sending Outbound Communications That Generate Inbound Communications.” 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 1, although Wickasano teaches 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, in a multiple-locations contact center, said computerized-method comprising:
receiving a rebalancing-request and workload-information of the working-shift of the source location, via a User Interface (UI) of the WFM application, 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,
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;
(generating workload forecasts and staffing plans for contact centers, a Workforce Management (WFM) solution with forecasting, hiring, and scheduling features, as well as capabilities that can balance the contact center's business needs, and a forecasting model may be configured to forecast a distribution that distributes a workload level, and a continuous staffing and planning activity by fulfilling the need for staffing requirements for any scheduling or capacity planning scenarios), Wicaksono does not teach the specific operating sequence steps of parallel time intervals as overstaffed on a per-critical skill basis and using those intervals to operate agents distribution across locations and updating staffing plans:
(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 from a staffing-database
that is associated to the WFM application;
b. marking the parallel time-interval as overstaffed for the critical-skill based on a
net-staffing calculation;
(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;
These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). 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
Prosecution Insights