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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the RCE filed on March 2, 2026.
• Claims 1, 8, and 14 have been amended and are hereby entered.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made Non-FINAL.
• The Examiner would like to note that this application is now being handled by Examiner Raven Yono.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner is withdrawing the Specification objections due to Applicant’s amendments.
The Examiner is withdrawing the 35 USC § 112 rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument on page 10, that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in the 35 USC § 101 rejection below, the claimed invention allows for soliciting feedback for customer service interactions and performing a remediation action based on scoring of the customer service interactions. The Specification at [0002]-[0004] states:
“For many businesses, a customer care center (or contact center), is an important interface to their customers… Increasingly, agents of a contact center are artificially intelligent (AI) agents… While they may deliver factually accurate content they, like their human counterparts, may interrupt, say something inappropriate, be overly blunt, dismiss a point raised, or otherwise interact with a customer in a way that may create a negative (or positive) impression for the customer. Knowing how agents, whether human or AI, perform during a call can be of critical importance to businesses.”
The Specification and claims focus on an improvement to the process of soliciting feedback for customer service interactions and performing remedial action based on the scoring of the customer service interaction, which is a commercial and legal interaction including business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and therefore is an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 10, that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that generally link the use of the judicial exception into a particular technological environment or field of use-see MPEP 2106.05(h). Here, the additional elements of claim 1 include a microprocessor of a communication monitoring system; a network; a customer device; an agent device; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device; user interface elements; a graphical user interface rendered on the agent device; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements of claim 8 include a first artificial intelligence (AI) agent; a network; a customer device; a second artificial intelligence (AI) agent; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device comprising user interface elements; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements of claim 14 include at least one microprocessor coupled with a computer memory comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by the at least one microprocessor, cause the at least one microprocessor to perform claim functions; a network; a customer device; an agent device; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device; user interface elements; a graphical user interface rendered on the agent device; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements are such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception (e.g., soliciting feedback for customer service interactions and performing remedial action based on the scoring of the customer service interaction) to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, in determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., a generic processor, a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform the claimed method steps and system functions. The processor, memory and system are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Furthermore, the Specification describes a problem and improvement to a business or commercial process at least at [0002]-[0004], stating:
“For many businesses, a customer care center (or contact center), is an important interface to their customers… Increasingly, agents of a contact center are artificially intelligent (AI) agents… While they may deliver factually accurate content they, like their human counterparts, may interrupt, say something inappropriate, be overly blunt, dismiss a point raised, or otherwise interact with a customer in a way that may create a negative (or positive) impression for the customer. Knowing how agents, whether human or AI, perform during a call can be of critical importance to businesses.”
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11, that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations are directed to an abstract idea and when determining if the claims are directed to significantly more, the additional limitations of the claims in addition to the abstract idea are analyzed. In the instant application, the additional elements of claim 1 include a microprocessor of a communication monitoring system; a network; a customer device; an agent device; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device; user interface elements; a graphical user interface rendered on the agent device; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements of claim 8 include a first artificial intelligence (AI) agent; a network; a customer device; a second artificial intelligence (AI) agent; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device comprising user interface elements; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements of claim 14 include at least one microprocessor coupled with a computer memory comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by the at least one microprocessor, cause the at least one microprocessor to perform claim functions; a network; a customer device; an agent device; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device; user interface elements; a graphical user interface rendered on the agent device; a database associated with the communication. The additional limitations, when considered both individually and in combination, do not affect an improvement to another technology or technological field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims merely amount to merely generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network), and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer network to carry out the abstract idea itself. The specifics about the abstract idea do not overcome the rejection.
Furthermore and in response to Applicant’s arguments on page 10 where Applicant argues the Office Action does not identify evidence that claim elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art, the Examiner respectfully points out that the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h). This consideration is different than the Well Understood, Routine, and Conventional Consideration –See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claims are not patent eligible.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 are directed to a method (claims 1 and 8) and a system (claim 14). Therefore, on its face, each independent claim 1, 8, and 14 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.03).
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), claims 1, 8, and 14 recite, in part, a method and a system of organizing human activity. Claim 1 recites a method, comprising: monitoring a communication between a customer and an agent; presenting a customer survey comprising elements configured to solicit feedback on the communication; presenting an agent survey comprising elements configured to solicit feedback on the communication; generating a customer survey score from responses from the customer; generating an agent survey score from responses from the agent; computing a difference value between the agent survey score and the customer survey score; and responsive to determining that the difference exceeds a threshold, performing initiating a remediation action comprising triggering a notification message to a supervisory system and automatically connecting the supervisory system to the communication.
Claim 8 recites a method, comprising: monitoring, by a first agent, a communication, between a customer and a second agent; presenting a customer survey comprising elements configured to solicit feedback on the communication; causing the second agent to respond to an agent survey to provide feedback on the communication; generating a customer survey score from responses from the customer; generating an agent survey score from the agent; computing a difference value between the agent survey score and the customer survey score; and responsive to determining the difference value exceeds a threshold, automatically initiating a remediation action comprising triggering a notification message to a supervisory system and automatically connecting the supervisory system to the communication.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 1 above.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial and legal interactions and managing personal behaviors or relationships or social interactions between people (certain methods of organizing human activity), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The claimed inventions allows for soliciting feedback for customer service interactions and performing a remediation action based on scoring of the customer service interactions, which is a commercial and legal interaction including business relations, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a microprocessor, a customer device, an agent device, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.04), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements of claim 1 include a microprocessor of a communication monitoring system; a network; a customer device; an agent device; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device; user interface elements; a graphical user interface rendered on the agent device; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements of claim 8 include a first artificial intelligence (AI) agent; a network; a customer device; a second artificial intelligence (AI) agent; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device comprising user interface elements; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements of claim 14 include at least one microprocessor coupled with a computer memory comprising computer readable instructions that, when read by the at least one microprocessor, cause the at least one microprocessor to perform claim functions; a network; a customer device; an agent device; a graphical user interface rendered on the customer device; user interface elements; a graphical user interface rendered on the agent device; a database associated with the communication. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer components performing generic computer functions of monitoring communications between a customer device and agent, presenting surveys to solicit feedback, generating scores and determining a difference between the scores, and performing a remediation action) such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., a computer network).-see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the combination of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106.05), the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. Dependent claims 4-7, 11-13, and 17-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-3, 9-10, and 15-16 simply further describes the technological environment. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230007124 A1 (“Krucek”) discloses automated transcription and intent detection and an AI model to evaluate interactions between an agent and a customer within a call center environment. The evaluation flow used for manual evaluations is leveraged so that the evaluators can correct the AI evaluations when appropriate. Based on such corrections, the AI model can be retrained to accommodate specifics of the business and center—resulting in more confidence in the AI model over time
US 12131272 B1 (“Shepherd”) discloses a conversation control system and associated methods adapt or modify currently active or future conversations and/or interactions based on machine-generated models that continuously evaluate client satisfaction over the entirety of the active conversations and/or interactions. The system receives a conversation with utterances by two or more participants, and generates a vector with features comprised of words, word sequences, and category classifications associated with at least one of the utterances. The system provides the features as inputs to a prediction model that assigns weights to a set of features based on a modeling of different impacts that each feature of the set of features has on one or more aspects of customer satisfaction. The system generates predictions for those aspects of customer satisfaction without input from the participants based on the assigned weights, and performs an automated action based on the one or more predictions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAVEN E YONO whose telephone number is (313)446-6606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5PM EST.
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, Bennett M Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/RAVEN E YONO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights