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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action.
In response to Examiner's communication of 5/14/2026, Applicant responded on 6/10/2026. Amended claim 1, 13.
Claims 1-9, and 12-13 are pending in this application and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 13 are not sufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits, “...Independent claims 1 and 13 have been amended to further clarify that the ACD follow-up action based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent by updating an agent profile used by the ACD system for routing interactions based on a skill needed, the updating including adding a new skill category to the agent profile or removing an existing skill from the agent profile.… the claims do not merely determine or report a proficiency score. Rather, the claims recite an ordered computerized process in which monitored and recorded real-time data streams yield metadata for interactions, the metadata is used to determine concurrent handling and focused/defocused event information, the CSHAP score is calculated using recited metadata-derived attributes, the score is stored in the data store of agents, and the score is sent to an ACD system that changes routing-skill attributes by updating an agent profile used by the ACD system for routing interactions based on a skill needed….The claims are directed to a computerized contact-center process that operates on metadata yielded from monitored and recorded real-time data streams of interactions. The claims further require checking the metadata for defocused events based on first key characteristics of defocused events and second key characteristics of focused events, where defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat window. The claims then require calculating the CSHAP score using recited interaction-specific attributes, including total time of one or more focused events during each interaction, and using the resulting CSHAP score in an ACD system to update an agent profile used for routing interactions based on a skill needed. Thus, even if certain aspects of the claims involve evaluation or calculation, the claims are not properly reduced to human mental evaluation of agent focus or a mathematical score divorced from the claimed computerized contact-center operation….The amended claims require more than applying a score on a generic computer. The claims recite a specific ordered process in which real-time interaction data streams are monitored and recorded to yield metadata, the metadata is used to determine whether interactions were handled with concurrent different interactions, the metadata is checked for defocused events using focused/defocused event characteristics, and the resulting CSHAP score is used by an ACD system to change routing-skill attributes by updating an agent profile used by the ACD system for routing interactions based on a skill needed. This is a concrete use of the calculated CSHAP score in the operation of a contact-center routing system. The amended ACD limitation does not merely present information, store information, or generally link the claims to a call-center environment. Rather, the score is applied to update the agent profile used by the ACD system for routing interactions. The routing-skill attributes therefore affect how the ACD system routes subsequent interactions based on the skills needed for those interactions. The specification supports this practical application. Paragraph [0092] in the application as-filed explains that agents may have skills assigned based on technical expertise, that interactions may be routed based on skill needed, and that ACD follow-up actions based on the CSHAP score may include adding a new skill category and updating the agent profile to include that skill or include that skill and remove an existing skill. Paragraph [0093] in the application as-filed further states that the ACD follow-up actions based on the CSHAP score may include changing attributes of routing skills of the agent. Paragraph [0094] in the application as-filed explains that the routing-skill attributes may be elevated when the agent has a high CSHAP score or downgraded when the CSHAP score is poor. Accordingly, the amended claims apply the claimed CSHAP score to a specific operational use in the ACD system: updating the agent profile used for routing interactions based on skill needed. This is an integration into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. The claimed process improves the operation of the contact-center routing environment by using monitored real-time interaction metadata and focused-event time to adjust routing-skill attributes used by the ACD system. The Examiner states that elements such as retrieving, monitoring, recording, storing, and sending constitute data gathering or output. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims must be evaluated as a whole and in view of the ordered combination. Here, the recited operations are not isolated data-gathering or output steps. They are part of a claimed pipeline in which monitored real-time interaction metadata is used to determine concurrency and focused/defocused event behavior, calculate the CSHAP score from specified interaction attributes, and update an ACD routing profile used for subsequent routing operations. Under MPEP §2106.04(d), this constitutes application of any alleged exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the exception to a computer or call-center environment…The amended independent claims recite a specific ordered combination, including: monitored and recorded real-time data streams yielding metadata; determining concurrency based on the yielded metadata; checking metadata for defocused events based on focused/defocused event characteristics; calculating a CSHAP score using recited attributes including total focused-event time; storing the CSHAP score in a data store of agents; and sending the score to an ACD system that changes routing-skill attributes by updating an agent profile used by the ACD system for routing interactions based on a skill needed. This ordered combination is not a generic instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer. The CSHAP score is not merely displayed or reported. It is used to update routing-skill attributes in an agent profile used by the ACD system for routing interactions. The amended claim language therefore ties the computed result to a concrete change in the data used by the ACD system to perform routing. The Office Action cites paragraphs [0025], [0034], [0074], [0075], [0078], [0091], [0092], [0119], and [00121]-[00123] as evidence that additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Applicant respectfully submits that those passages do not establish that the claimed ordered combination is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Paragraph [0092], for example, supports the specific ACD profile update now recited in the claims, including updating the agent profile to include a skill or include a skill and remove an existing skill. Paragraphs [0093] and [0094] further support changing, elevating, or downgrading routing-skill attributes based on the CSHAP score. These disclosures support the claimed practical application rather than showing that the claimed ordered combination is merely conventional computer activity. The Examiner also states that a chat window can be observed and evaluated by humans visually and mentally. However, the claims do not merely require observing a chat window. The claims require monitored and recorded real-time data streams yielding metadata, determining concurrent handling based on the yielded metadata, checking the metadata for defocused events according to focused/defocused event characteristics, calculating the CSHAP score based on recited interaction attributes including focused-event time, and applying that score in the ACD system to update an agent profile used for routing interactions based on skill needed. These claim limitations, considered as an ordered combination, are not reasonably characterized as a human mental process performed with pen and paper…” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims and the argued elements, are directed to, …determines concurrency, determines presence of defocused events versus focused events, and computes a score based on attributes including focused-event time…the computed CSHAP score is … for follow-up actions, … that changes attributes of routing skills of the agent… updating including adding a new skill category to the agent profile or removing an existing skill from the agent profile…, is a problem directed to mental process (i.e. human mentally managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers and assign follow-work to human agents based on human agent skill scores determined by mathematical concepts), organizing human activities (i.e. human mentally managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers and assign follow-work to human agents based on human agent skill scores determined by mathematical concepts), mathematical concepts (i.e. human mentally managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers and assign follow-work to human agents based on human agent skill scores determined by mathematical concepts), as established in Step 2A Prong 1. This problem does not specifically arise in the realm of computer technology, but rather, this problem existed and was addressed long before the advent of computers. Thus, the claims do not recite a technical improvement to a technical problem. Additionally, pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components, i.e. computer. Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and call center ACD, performing extra solution activities. Therefore, as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 (apply it and general link) or amount to significantly more in Step 2B (apply it and WURC).
As stated in the MPEP, "an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology." MPEP 2106.05(a). Mere automation of a manual process or a business method being applied on a general purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or other technology, and the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, Applicant’s claims do not recite an improvement in technology or integrate into a practical application, but rather mental processes, organizing human activities, and mathematical concepts implemented using or applying generic computer components.
Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018).
Simply reciting specific limitations that narrow the abstract idea does not make an abstract idea non-abstract. 79 Fed. Reg. 74631; buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (2014); see SAP America at p. 12. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at p. 3.
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”).
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that “with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper”. 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were “the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries.” 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include:
i. A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iii. A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
iv. A method of using advertising as an exchange or currency being applied or implemented on the Internet, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
v. Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
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 1-9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 (similarly 13) recite, “A …-method for determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising:
operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising:
(a) operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions
wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata;
(b) for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata;
(c) for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events,
wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and
wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat …;
(d) calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types,
wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction;
(e) storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and
(f) sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score.
…, and
wherein the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent by updating an agent profile used by the … for routing interactions based on a skill needed, the updating including one of: adding a new skill category to the agent profile and removing an existing skill from the agent profile.”
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 1:
The limitations regarding, …determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising: operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising: operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions…wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata; for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata; for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and …wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat window; calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction; storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score…the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent…, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can include a human using their mind and using pen and paper to perform the above identified limitations; therefore, the claims are directed to a mental process.
Further, …determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising: operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising: operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions…wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata; for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata; for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and …wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat …; calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction; storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score…the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent…, are human managing human agents’ ability to focus and proficiency at chatting with human customers, which are managing interactions between people, therefore the claims, are directed to certain methods of organizing human activities.
Additionally, …determining an agent proficiency when addressing concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types and utilization thereof, the …-method comprising: operating a Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) …, said CSHAP … comprising: operating an interactions … to retrieve one or more interactions and metadata thereof of the agent during a preconfigured period from the data store of interactions…wherein said one or more interactions were monitored and recorded to collect real-time data streams of each interaction in the one or more interactions and yield the metadata; for each interaction of the one or more retrieved interactions, determining if the interaction has been handled with concurrent different interactions during the preconfigured period via one or more channels types, based on the yielded metadata; for each determined interaction as handled with concurrent different interactions checking in the metadata if the interaction has one or more defocused events, wherein the determining is based on a first key characteristics of defocused events and a second key characteristics of focus events, and …wherein defocused events are inactive-time events of an agent and a customer during the interaction and focused events are active-time events of the agent and the customer via a chat …; calculating a CSHAP score for the agent based on one or more attribute from the metadata of the interaction to provide an indication as to an ability of the agent to address different concurrent customer sessions via one or more channel types, wherein the CSHAP is calculated based on a total number of concurrent different interactions handled by the agent during the preconfigured period, customer sentiment or feedback score for each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction, total time taken to handle each interaction and a total time of one or more focused events during each interaction in the total number of concurrent different interaction; storing the calculated CSHAP score in the data store of agents; and sending the CSHAP score to one or more …, to take one or more follow-up actions base on the CSHAP score…the one or more follow-up actions of the … based on the CSHAP score includes changing attributes of routing skills of the agent…, is mathematical concepts.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, certain methods of organizing human activities, mathematical concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Analyzing under Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea identified under Step 2A, Prong 1, such as:
Claim 1, 13: computerized, module, chat window, applications, computerized-system comprising: one or more processors; a data store of interactions; a data store of agents; and a memory to store the data stores, said one or more processors are configured to, application of the one or more applications is an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system, ACD system
Claim 5: gamification application
Claim 8: Quality Management (QM) application
Claim 12: cloud computing environment
, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea, and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components.
Further, these additional elements generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment, namely the environment of a computer and a call center, and the chat window is an additional element that can be overserved and evaluated by humans visually and mentally.
Additionally, with respect to, “…to retrieve…”, “…monitored and recorded to collect…”, “…storing…”, “…sending…”, “…updating…”, these elements do not add a meaningful limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are extra-solution activity, pre and post solution activity - i.e. data gathering – “…to retrieve…”, “…monitored and recorded to collect…”, “…storing…”, data output – “…sending…”, “…updating…”
Analyzing under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because, as an order combination, the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it).
Additionally, as an order combination, the additional elements append the recited abstract idea to well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field as individually evinced by the applicant’s own disclosure, as required by the Berkheimer Memo, in at least:
[0025]In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the disclosure. However, it will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art that the disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, modules, units and/or circuits have not been described in detail so as not to obscure the disclosure.
[0034]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a computerized system, such as system 100A may include one or more processors 130, a data store, such as data store of interactions 120, a data store such as data store of agents 125, and a memory 110 to store the data stores. The one or more processors 130 may operate for each agent in the data store of agents 125, a module, such as Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) module 135, and such as module CSHAP 200 in Figs. 2A-2B.
[0074]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, one application of the one or more applications may be a gamification application, a Quality Management (QM) application or an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system, as shown in Fig. 1B.
[0075]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, when system 100A is operating in a cloud computing environment, before operating the CSHAP module 135 the system 100A may further comprise selecting a tenant from a data store of tenants to operate the CSHAP module 135 for each agent in the data store of agents of the selected tenant.
[0078]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a computerized system, such as system 100B may include all the components of system 100A, which are one or more processors 130, a data store, such as data store of interactions 120, a data store such as data store of agents 125; and a memory 110 to store the data stores. The one or more processors 130 may operate for each agent in the data store of agents 125, a module, such as Concurrent Sessions Handling Agent Proficiency (CSHAP) module 135, and such as module CSHAP 200, in Figs. 2A-2B.
[0091]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, one application of the one or more applications may be an Automated Call Distribution (ACD) system 140c.
[0092]According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, agents may have skills assigned based on their technical expertise such as basic support, advanced support, billing and the like. Interactions may be routed based on skill needed. The follow-up actions of the ACD system 140c based on the CSHAP score may be for example adding a new skill category such as network security issues, and updating the agent profile to include that skill or include that skill and remove an existing skill.
[0119] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a threshold may be provided by QM application 540 to check if the agent CSHAP score is below a threshold 530. When the CSHAP score is below the threshold the agent may need a coaching package assignment 550 which may be assigned out of existing packages by a user, such as a manager, e.g. coaching packages 560a-560c.
[00121]Similarly, it should be understood that, unless indicated otherwise, the illustrated order of execution of the operations represented by blocks of any flowchart referenced herein has been selected for convenience and clarity only. Operations of the illustrated method may be executed in an alternative order, or concurrently, with equivalent results. Such reordering of operations of the illustrated method should be understood as representing other embodiments of the illustrated method.
[00122]Different embodiments are disclosed herein. Features of certain embodiments may be combined with features of other embodiments; thus, certain embodiments may be combinations of features of multiple embodiments. The foregoing description of the embodiments of the disclosure has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise form disclosed. It should be appreciated by persons skilled in the art that many modifications, variations, substitutions, changes, and equivalents are possible in light of the above teaching. It is, therefore, to be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications and changes as fall within the true spirit of the disclosure.
[00123]While certain features of the disclosure have been illustrated and described herein, many modifications, substitutions, changes, and equivalents will now occur to those of ordinary skill in the art. It is, therefore, to be understood that the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications and changes as fall within the true spirit of the disclosure.
Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Moreover, the remaining elements of dependent claims do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these remaining elements merely recite further abstract limitations that provide nothing more than simply a narrowing of the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components to “apply” the recited abstract idea, perform insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally link the abstract idea to a technical environment. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 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 1-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PO HAN MAX LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3821. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 8:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 the PAIR system, see http://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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PO HAN LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights