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 May 1, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, 10, 13, and 16.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the claims do not recite the groupings of mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity, or a mental process. Examiner points out that Step 2A recites that the claim under examination must fall within at least one of the groupings that includes mathematical concepts, mental processes, and methods of organizing human activity; at least one of, not necessarily all groupings. Mathematical concepts are not listed in the line-by-line analysis of claims 10-15 of Step 2A-Prong 1. Organizing human activity- following rules or instructions permeates all aspects of the method: retrieving historical evaluations for each evaluator from the plurality of evaluators based on the diverse evaluation configuration rules, diverse criteria prompt rules; retrieving specific data, evaluating a defined number of interactions for category rules and even distributing interactions that match diverse rules, all involve rules that define procedures, enable analyses, and define the method. In the absence of rules, evaluation and analysis would have no structure and be meaningless. Mental processes are even more common in applications involving processors; fundamental steps of observing, comparing, reasoning, deciding, evaluating, and specific to the claims, retrieving, distributing, constructing, executing a prompt, determining coverage, or determining an evaluator has not evaluated a defined number of interactions, these form the basis of many of the actions or steps executed on a processor. Based on this analysis, the examiner disagrees with the applicant’s claims that the claims do not recite abstract ideas. Abstract ideas underlie most processor-based applications, and they are prevalent in the current application.
Applicant also argues that the claims as an ordered combination collectively transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. Claim 10 retrieves data, configuring via a GUI, constructing and executing a LLM prompt, returning and displaying the results. Claim 11 calculates a DAE score, claim 12 generates a report that includes the score and displays the report to a manager, claim 13 displays interactions to the evaluator, analyzing results for compliance with rules and assigns the interactions to the evaluator. Claim 14 determines unique interactions, applying a sampling factor and samples interactions. Claim 15 describes analyzing the interactions with a second LLM prompt and execution, filtering out interactions that match the category rules. The Examiner interprets this ordered combination as applying software to perform data processing on a computer processor and delivering a result to an evaluator via a display. Claims do not disclose novel application of additional elements, an improvement to the functioning of a computer, monitoring or controlling an action based on interfacing with another machine or process, or training a machine learning model in any form. Evidence of any of these would support arguments of a practical application, but these are not in the claims. The claims describe application of software to a processor, presented to a human on a conventional display, an instance of “Apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the request to withdraw the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 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 1-20 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 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 employing for distributing diverse interactions for evaluation in contact centers, and more particularly to methods that analyze interaction transcripts to categorize interactions to ensure that evaluators are evaluating different types of interactions.
Claim 10: A method for distributing interactions for evaluation, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), which comprises:
retrieving a diverse evaluation configuration, wherein the diverse evaluation
configuration comprises diverse evaluation configuration rules for a plurality of evaluators and the diverse evaluation configuration rules comprise diverse interaction category rules; (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the diverse evaluation configuration is configured, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
retrieving historical evaluations for each evaluator from the plurality of evaluators based on the diverse evaluation configuration rules; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
retrieving diverse criteria prompt rules;
retrieving an interaction transcript associated with each historical evaluation; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
evaluate each interaction transcript to return a category of interaction for each interaction transcript; (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining evaluation coverage for each returned category of interaction for each evaluator; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining that an evaluator has not evaluated a defined number of interactions for one or more of the diverse interaction category rules; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
displaying to the evaluator one or more interactions that match the one or more diverse interaction category rules to the evaluator for evaluation. (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method for determining evaluation coverage for each returned category of interaction for each evaluator comprises calculating a diverse assignment of evaluation (DAE) score for each returned category of interaction, (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 11), generating a coverage report that includes the calculated DAE score; and displaying the coverage report to a manager of the evaluator, (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 12), where displaying to the evaluator interactions that match category rules for evaluation comprises retrieving interactions, analyzing interactions to ensure rules are matched, and assigning the analyzed interactions to the evaluator, (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 13), where retrieving interactions for the evaluator comprises: determining a number of unique interactions from the rules, applying a sampling factor to the interactions and sampling interactions from an interaction database based on the rules, (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 14), wherein analyzing the interactions to ensure they match the diverse interaction category rules comprises: a second review on each sampled interaction to return a category of interaction for each sampled interaction; and filtering out the sampled interactions that match one or more diverse interaction category rules, (following rules or instructions, managing personal interactions with people, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 15).
Each of these claimed limitations employ mental processes involving organizing human activity, managing personal behavior or interactions, following rules or instructions and observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Claims 1-9, 16-20 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 10-15.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as a processor, a graphical user interface (GUI), a large language model (LLM) and prompts, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a library of stressful statements, 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 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 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 1-20 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
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.
Claims 1, 5-11 were previously not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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. 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