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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 - 21, as best understood, are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record pending the satisfaction of the Non-Statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting rejections and if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, set forth in this Office action below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject 6. matter: The claimed invention, as best understood, is not disclosed or rendered obvious in view of the prior art of record. The prior art of record (closest being DANSON et al.; US 2018/0159977 fails to teach or disclose, alone or in combination, the claimed features of decisioning behavioral combinations and pairings in a task assignment system as specifically carried out in combination with the totality/entirety of the steps/operations comprehensively recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17.
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 is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 1–8 are directed to a method.
Claims 9–16 are directed to a system.
Claims 17–20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Therefore, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Analysis
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recites:
determining tasks and agents available for pairing
associating measurement values (e.g., revenue values)
pairing tasks and agents based on a strategy
comparing pre- and post-pairing measurements
determining an “influenceability factor”, and
using the factor to inform subsequent pairing
These limitations fall within certain methods of organizing human activity, namely commercial interactions and managing relationships between service providers and customers and mathematical concepts, including comparison of values and determining of factors based on such comparisons.
The claims merely recite receiving information, analyzing it, and using the analysis to make a decision regarding assignment of a task to an agent such are fundamental economic and business practices.
Since courts have held that organizing human activity and economic practices are abstract ideas and that using mathematical relationships to optimize assignments are abstract ideas then the claims recite a judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(lll).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The additional elements include:
“at least one computer processor communicatively coupled”
a task assignment system
storing and associating measurement values
These elements merely implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system.
The claims do not: improve computer functionality, improve network performance or the like. Rather, the processor performs generic data processing functions of :
determining, associating, comparing and paring.
These are conventional computer activities. The claims merely use a computer to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis
The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more than:
A generic processor, and
conventional data comparison and storage.
The claims merely apply a business optimization strategy using conventional computing components. The use of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” (claims 17–20) does not add significantly more.
Accordingly, the claims do not recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. (MPEP 2106.05 (1)(A) and MPEP 2106.05(d).
Dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 – 16 and 18 – 20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible because the additional limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they recite further establishment of the judicial exception.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,003. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent discloses pairing tasks with agents in a contact center, determining performance metrics associated with such tasks and using metrics for assignment decisions. The instant claims only differ from the patent in that that they recite determining an “influenceability factor” based on comparing pre and post pairing measurements and using such a factor to determine future task pairings.
However, determining a derived performance metric (e.g., influenceability) based on comparison of expected and actual revenue would have been an obvious variation of the metric-based pairing disclosed in the ’003 patent.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,614. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent discloses behavioral-based task assignment, predictive outcome modeling and revenue-based prioritization while the present claims merely recite comparing expected and actual revenue and using the comparison to influence subsequent pairing decisions. However, such comparison-based refinements are an obvious extension of predictive assignment techniques.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,196,865. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent discloses contact center routing optimization, agent performance-based routing and dynamic reassignment strategies. The instant claimed limitation od an “influenceability factor” represents a performance-derived routing modifier or enhancment and would have been an obvious modification of dynamic routing disclosed in the ’865 patent.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,917,526. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent discloses an assigning calls based on behavioral characteristics and adjusting assignment strategies based on outcome data. The instant claims merely formalize outcome comparison as an “influenceability factor,” which constitutes an obvious refinement.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,757, 262. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent discloses predictive routing, performance metric feedback loops and revenue-based optimization.
The instant claimed comparison of expected vs. actual revenue and subsequent routing adjustment is an obvious application of feedback optimization principles disclosed in the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273-7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see https://pair-direct.uspto.gov
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
21Feb2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights