DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/02/26 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
"on behalf of" should be "for" [Claims 1, 10, 19, lines 5, 8, 6].
Appropriate correction is required. Further, in an effort to practice compact prosecution, each of these limitations has been interpreted similarly as in the provided recommendation for each limitation, above.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 10, 19 similarly recite splitting, by a computing system and based on organization identifiers and sequence identifiers, a data frame indicative of a set of events associated with customer interactions with automated agents of a contact center on behalf of one or more organizations to produce a set of multiple partitions, wherein each partition represents one or more events associated with a corresponding organization identifier; producing, by the computing system, a set of multiple trie data structures, including generating a trie data structure for each partition, wherein each trie data structure represents aggregate counts of a corresponding subset of event sequences associated with a corresponding organization; merging, by the computing system, multiple trie data structures of the set of trie data structures to produce a combined organization trie data structure; and storing, by the computing system, the combined organization trie data structure to enable generation of a visualization of the combined organization trie data structure.
The limitations of splitting ... based on organization identifiers and sequence identifiers, a data frame indicative of a set of events associated with customer interactions with automated agents of a contact center on behalf of one or more organizations to produce a set of multiple partitions, wherein each partition represents one or more events associated with a corresponding organization identifier; producing ... a set of multiple trie data structures, including generating a trie data structure for each partition, wherein each trie data structure represents aggregate counts of a corresponding subset of event sequences associated with a corresponding organization; merging ... multiple trie data structures of the set of trie data structures to produce a combined organization trie data structure, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes but from the recitation of implementing them on generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a/the computing system” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a/the computing system” language, the limitations pertaining to “splitting”, “producing”, and “merging” in the context of these claims encompass the user judging the splitting of a data frame, judging and writing down on a piece of paper trees for each partition representing counts, and judging and writing down on a piece of paper a combination of trees. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, 19 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of – by a/the computing system; and storing, by the computing system, the combined organization trie data structure to enable generation of a visualization of the combined organization trie data structure; a system for providing efficient trie data structure processing, the system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, causes the system to:; one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media comprising a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a computing system, causes the computing system to:. The system, computing system, processor, non-transitory machine-readable storage media, memory, and automated agents of a contact center are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The additional element pertaining to “storing” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and is a mere data gathering steps. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The claims 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 element pertaining to “storing” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity that is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activities in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these limitations, both individually and in combination, fail to amount to an inventive concept because they merely append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, and thus, do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B). Accordingly, claims 1, 10, 19 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 depend on claims 1, 10, 19 and include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, these claims are directed to the same abstract idea and the analysis must proceed to (Step 2A, Prong 2).
Claims 2, 11, 20 recite additional limitations pertaining to assigning partitions to separate execution units. These units are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. The assigning of partitions to separate execution units merely recites generic computing components performing generic computing functions. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As aforementioned, these devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer devices performing generic computer functions) and do not meaningfully limit the claim. Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3, 12 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to performing analytics. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a filtering of the trie data structures. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3 ,12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 4, 13 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to merging comprising identifying, repartitioning, and merging. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging identifiers, judging a repartitioning of the data frame, and judging a merging of trie structures along with drawing these merges using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 4 ,13 are not patent eligible.
Claims 5, 14 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to merging comprising initializing, reading, and merging. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging an empty base trie, analyzing multiple trie data structures, and judging a merging of them along, and perhaps, depicting this using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 5, 14 are not patent eligible.
Claims 6, 15 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to merging comprising sorting and combining. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a sort order of node paths and judging a combining of a subtrie and base trie node, and perhaps, depicting this using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 6, 15 are not patent eligible.
Claims 7, 16 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to tracking and calculating. The additional element pertaining to “tracking” and “calculating” represent further mental process steps of analyzing merged nodes and judging an edge count. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation pertaining to “including querying” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and merely represents an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and is a mere data gathering step. Accordingly, these 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 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 represent further mental process steps and/or well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry. That is, these limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the fields of data processing and/or data storage and retrieval and are merely directed to the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, these additional elements do not cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8, 17 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to identifying, identifying, and deleting. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a selected node, judging a child node, and judging an erasure or crossing out of the child node set from a visualization of the tree which could be drawn using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 8, 17 are not patent eligible.
Claims 9, 18 similarly recite additional limitations pertaining to identifying, identifying, subtracting, and deleting. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements represent further mental process steps of judging a selected node, judging a child node, judging the result of subtracting counts of child nodes from parent nodes, and judging an erasure or crossing out of the identified child node set from a visualization of the tree which could be drawn using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. This additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim does 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 represent further mental process steps. Therefore, these additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 9, 18 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
The following is in response to the amendment filed on 02/02/26.
Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 10, applicant argues that the claims are not directed to any method or system that involved an abstract idea.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that this is inaccurate, as the claims do recite limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. Further, the applicant has failed to identify which limitations they believe are not directed to an abstract idea with supporting remarks.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 11-12, applicant argues that the splitting limitation cannot be performed in the human mind.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the “splitting” limitation encompasses judging the splitting of a data frame indicative of events associated with interaction with agents on behalf of organization to produce partitions which each represent events associated with a corresponding organization identifier. The limitation is not tied to any particular data structure or process within a data structure, and rather, only relies on the use of generic computing components performing generic computing functions.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 12, applicant argues that based on cited paragraphs, there is not reason for the human mind to attempt to perform the operations as recited and the human mind is incapable of operating on such a data frame.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the Alice/Mayo framework does not require there to be a “reason” for a human mind to perform operations in order for a limitation to be directed to an abstract idea. Further, the claim does not recite any limitations that tie this limitation to memory, or especially, its capacity and/or the size of the data frames. As aforementioned, the data frames are not even tied to any sort of data structure and/or storage means.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 12-13, applicant argues that the features of claim 1 are recited with specificity and impose meaningful limits and explicit details on how the system splits a data frame (with additional details), produces trie data structure, and merges trie data structure, and stores them.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the “splitting”, “producing” and “merging” limitations are executed outside of any sort of actual data structure and/or storage means. The storage of the final trie data structure is the only recitation of any storage and the term “trie data structure” is not specifically tied to data that is stored within any sort of storage means and/or within a data structure specific to a database or other data storage device even in its final form. Rather, as aforementioned, the claims only recite the use of generic computing components performing generic computing functions which does not preclude them from being directed to mental process steps.
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pg. 13-15, applicant argues that the claims represent an improvement in the functioning of the computer, recites paragraph from the specification, and states that the partitioning of the data frame enables data to be read more reliably into computer memory and enables a processing load to be distributed more even among execution units of a computer system.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the claims are silent with regard to reading data frames into memory or distributed processing. MPEP 2106.05(a) states that “after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology.”
Regarding 35 USC 101, on pgs. 16-17, applicant argues that the prior art does not teach or suggest each of the features recited in the claims.
In response to the preceding argument, examiner respectfully submits that the prior art, as mentioned by the applicant, is not considered with regard to subject matter eligibility. This is clearly stated in MPEP [2106.06] " Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)".
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vymenets (US 2015/0350436) discloses executing interaction flow for contact centers;
Vymenets (US 2014/0177819) discloses configuring contact center routing strategies.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P BARTLETT whose telephone number is (469)295-9085. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 11:30-8:30, F 11-3.
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, Sherief Badawi can be reached on 571-272-9782. 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.
/WILLIAM P BARTLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2169
Prosecution Insights