DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/747,517. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated May 20, 2026, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments, mail dated June 11, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7 are examined below.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are pending in this application. The claim(s) 1,6, and 7 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant's amendment to the claims filed June 19, 2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant' s amendments to the claims, filed June 19, 2024 with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4,6-7 has been withdrawn. The claims 1-4,6-7 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on April 20, 2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant's arguments filed June 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See explanation below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, Applicant' s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks pages 5-8, filed June 19, 2024, with respect to the prior art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4,6-7 has been withdrawn. See Explanation below.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
On pages 1-5 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses Examiner’s rejection.
At Step 2A, prong one, Applicant submits claim 1, considered as a whole, is directed to a particular Automatic Contact Distributor, (ACD)-to-true-to interval data transformation workflow in which the Workforce Management (WFM) application consumes the transformed interval data. Applicant traverses, the downstream WFM forecast-generation and scheduling language does not define the claim as scheduling in the abstract.
At Step 2A, prong two, Applicant submits, claim 1 integrates any such exception into a practical application. Applicants submits the specification identifies a need for a mechanism that can ingest data from ACD applications without requirements an enhancement to the ACD application and convert time-based work item-handling data from the ACD application into activity-based measurement consumable by a WFM system. Applicant submits claim 1 implement that mechanism by retaining prior polling state, comparing current and prior ID/ Contacts and other data.
At step 2B, the limitations are generic computer implementation of a scheduling concept. They define a particular ACD polling/ state-persistence/data-transformation architecture that constructs true-to interval parameters from successive ACD polling data. The forecast and scheduling limitations are performed using transformed interval data; they do not remove the specific technical mechanism recited in claim 1. Applicant submits that independent claim 1 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 depend on claim 1 and include all limitations of Claim 1. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 101 rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-7 is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 argument. Examiner submits the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more.
Examiner submits, the claims recite abstract concepts. The claims are turning raw contact-center activity data into time-interval-based staffing analytics. The claims recite the abstract concept of calculating a true-to-interval analytic and lapse of time, which is a mathematical concept. (Examiner points the Applicant to specification [031], [048].)
Furthermore, the claims recite polling data-feed, calculating a true-to-interval analytic in a contact center to schedule agents, thus, the claims recite a commercial activity. Scheduling is a commercial activity. Polling is a method of collecting data that can be completed by a human gathering information like a questionnaire. Therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, a workflow sequence is a business activity which a certain method of organizing human activity 0f commercial activity, and thus, the claims recite an abstract concept. The pending claims recite the abstract concepts that are of the abstract groupings: mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite an abstract concept and therefore are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, prong one.
The claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claims are evaluated to determine if the additional elements are integrated into the judicial exception. The claims are evaluated to determine if there is an improvement. The claims recite the additional elements of an Automatic Contact Distributor (ACD), True-To-Interval database, Workforce Management (WFM) application, and an in-memory datastore. Examiner reviewed the application to determine if the additional elements are integrated into the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements are used to conduct the judicial exception, which is MPEP 2106.05(f). (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
The claims do not recite an improvement that is rooted in technology. The claims recite an improvement to the abstract idea of evaluating workflow and scheduling staff. For example, obtaining and storing true-to-interval parameters, calculating total interval-handle-time, and configuring a Workforce Management application to generate a forecast period having one or more future schedules is using the computer to gather and measure the data. The analytics obtained, stored, polled, and retrieved are improving the accuracy of forecasting and scheduling data, and thus, improve the judicial exception. The claims are using a computer to improve the gathering of analytical data that is used to improve scheduling. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two.
At Step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine if the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional elements(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (polling data-feed from the Automatic Contact Distributor application.) The claims are using mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The claims do not recite an inventive concept.
At Step 2B, the claims are reviewed for a technical solution to a technological problem. Here the same conclusion is reached. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The Applicant’s claims are polling data-feed from the Automatic Contact Distributor application and obtaining and storing true-to-interval parameters, calculating total interval-handle-time, and configuring a Workforce Management application to generate a forecast period having one or more future schedules the computer is merely executing an instruction. Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
At Step 2B, as discussed in Step 2A, the claims do not recite an improvement that is rooted in technology. As evidenced in the specification [009] the claims are a technical solution that will convert data received from ACD applications which currently includes time-based work item-handling to data that is activity-based measurements to be consumed by a WFM system. This is converting data. As stated above, this is “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner points Applicant to the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples (e.g., Example 42 – Medical Records.)
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
On pages 3-8 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, the Applicant traverses, the prior art does not teach the amended claim 1. The Applicant argues the claims do not cite the claimed ACD poll comparison, interval-specific parameter construction, or tti-database-true-to interval conversion. The Applicant disagrees with the KSR rationale. Accordingly, Applicant submits Lin in view of McSwiggan and Galvin does not teach or suggest amended Claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the rejections to independent claim 1 and to claims 2-4 and 6-7.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Examiner submits the Applicant’s amendments further narrow the claims to include a list of polled data and true-to interval parameters that are unique to the Assignee. Specifically, the claims recite a True-to-Interval (tti) database. Examiner’s updated search results identified the True-to-Interval (TTI) analytics being a NiCE, Ltd method. See Product Video True to Interval (TTI) Analytics by NiCE. Although other products on the market complete activity-based staffing, the True -to-Interval (TTI) analytics is a NiCE, Ltd method. The claims necessitate the True-to-Interval (tti) database. So, the Assignee has prior art that states True-to-Interval (tti) database because True-to-Interval (TTI) is a NiCE, Ltd method.
Examiner withdraws the prior art rejection for Claims 1-4 and 6-7. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are allowable.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are process.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1) recites, “…during a shift-schedule having one or more time-intervals, (i) calculating total interval-handle-time and total interval-hold-time for each contact for each time-interval by: every preconfigured time-period in the time-interval: a. polling data-feed… ; and b. obtaining true-to-interval parameters from the polled data-feed, and storing the true-to-interval parameters with start-time of the preconfigured time-period, in…, wherein the polled data-feed comprises agent state data including Agent ID, agent state, start time of the agent state, and Contact ID, wherein obtaining the true-to-interval parameters further comprises: retaining previously polled data …between successive polling of the data-feed, and comparing currently polled data with previously polled data, stored in …., by comparing Agent ID and Contact ID field values from the currently polled data with respective Agent ID and Contact ID field values of the previously polled data; checking if the contact is a new contact, when there is no record of the currently polled data for the Agent ID and Contact ID in the previously polled data, considering the contact to be a new contact and marking the contact as “received”, when an older state of the contact is found in the previously polled data, considering the contact to be an existing contact and checking if event state changed for [[an]] the existing contact, wherein the event state change comprises a change of the agent state with respect to the contact being handled from one of: “Active” to “Hold” and from “Hold” to “Active”, when the event state of the contact is changed, computing one of: corresponding handle-time [[or]] and hold-time depending on the state transitioned, and when the event state of the contact is not changed, computing lapsed time, wherein the true-to-interval parameters comprising comprise for each contact:
1) a state of activity; 2) handle-time duration; and 3) hold-time duration, (ii) at the end of the time-interval, calculating number of contacts having the activity state, based on the true-to-interval parameters …; (iii) storing the calculated total interval-handle-time and total interval-hold-time in the tti-database; (iv) calculating a total handle-time for all contacts during the time-interval, and storing the total handle-time for all contacts …; (v) repeating operations (i) – (iv) for each time-interval in the shift-schedule; and configuring … to generate a forecast for a period having one or more future-schedules based on the transmitted total handle-time and total hold-time of each time-interval and the total handle-time for each contact of one or more shift-schedules, and automatically schedule agents for the one or more future-schedules in the period”. calculating a true-to-interval analytic and lapse of time, which is a mathematical concept. Furthermore, the claims recite polling data-feed, calculating a true-to-interval analytic in a contact center to schedule agents, thus, the claims recite a commercial activity. Scheduling is a commercial activity. Polling is a method of collecting data that can be completed by a human gathering information like a questionnaire. Therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, a workflow sequence is a business activity which a certain method of organizing human activity 0f commercial activity, and thus, the claims recite an abstract concept. The pending claims recite the abstract concepts that are of the abstract groupings: mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite an abstract concept and therefore are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, prong one.
The claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claims are evaluated to determine if the additional elements are integrated into the judicial exception. The claims are evaluated to determine if there is an improvement. The claims recite the additional elements of “A computerized-method for enabling true-to-interval analytics from an Automatic Contact Distributor (ACD) application, said computerized-method comprising:”, “ from the ACD application”, “a True To Interval (tti)-database”, “in an in-memory datastore ”, “a Workforce Management (WFM) application ”. Examiner reviewed the application to determine if the additional elements are integrated into the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements are used to conduct the judicial exception, which is MPEP 2106.05(f). (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.)
The claims do not recite an improvement that is rooted in technology. The claims recite an improvement to the abstract idea of evaluating workflow and scheduling staff. For example, obtaining and storing true-to-interval parameters, calculating total interval-handle-time, and configuring a Workforce Management application to generate a forecast period having one or more future schedules is using the computer to gather and measure the data. The analytics obtained, stored, polled, and retrieved are improving the accuracy of forecasting and scheduling data, and thus, improve the judicial exception. The claims are using a computer to improve the gathering of analytical data that is used to improve scheduling. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application at Step 2A, prong two.
At Step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine if the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., does the claim recite additional elements(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (polling data-feed from the Automatic Contact Distributor application.) The claims are using mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. The claims do not recite an inventive concept.
At Step 2B, the claims are reviewed for a technical solution to a technological problem. Here the same conclusion is reached. That is, simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The Applicant’s claims are polling data-feed from the Automatic Contact Distributor application and obtaining and storing true-to-interval parameters, calculating total interval-handle-time, and configuring a Workforce Management application to generate a forecast period having one or more future schedules the computer are merely executing an instruction. Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A, or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
At Step 2B, as discussed in Step 2A, the claims do not recite an improvement that is rooted in technology. As evidenced in the specification [009] the claims are a technical solution that will convert data received from ACD applications which currently includes time-based work item-handling to data that is activity-based measurements to be consumed by a WFM system. This is converting data. As stated above, this is “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-4, 6-7 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4, 6-7 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takagi (1991, Application of polling models to computer networks.) provides an example of polling data using a computer.
Kosiba (WO 0,2093,321 A2) reaches receiving performance information from a performance monitoring system associated with the processing center system.
CXone WFM’s True to Interval, Copyright date 2024 retrieved 03/22/2025.
NICE TRUE TO INTERVAL (TTI) FAQ Whitepaper copyright 2024.
NICE True to Interval (TTI) Analytics by Nice – Product Video. Wayback February 2024. NPL retrieved September 9, 2026.
Mitchell (2024, NICE Expand Its True to Interval (TTI) Analytics Solution, Converges Contact Center).
Srinivas (US 2014/0,023,186 A1) optimizes staffing levels so as to minimize wait times for customers who call in and are placed on hold, while at the same time minimizing the amount of call center agents necessary.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights