Ex Parte AGGARWAL et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 5, 2019

12894624 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/894,624 09/30/2010
136582 7590 02/07/2019
STEVENS & SHOWALTER, LLP
Box AVAYA Inc.
7019 Corporate Way
Dayton, OH 45459-4238
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Pawan Kumar AGGARWAL
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
410103-US-NP/AVA009PA 6303
EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
pto@sspatlaw.com
pair_avaya@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PA WAN KUMAR AGGARWAL, JOYLEE E. KOHLER,
and KEDAR SW ADI
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, LARRY J. HUME, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-25. App. Br. 5. Claim 12
is cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Avaya, Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 1, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief
(filed October 18, 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
August 18, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed December 7, 2016,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed September 30, 2010, "Spec.") for
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a system and method for adaptively assigning
multiple contacts to an agent computer. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 15, 16, and 22 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A computer-implemented method for adaptively
assigning multiple contacts to an agent computer in a contact
center, the computer-implemented method comprising:
querying, by a computer of the contact center, a database
to request real-time effectiveness metrics for an agent;
receiving, through a communication interface coupled to
the computer of the contact center, the real-time effectiveness
metrics from the database;
storing, by the computer of the contact center, the agent's
historical effectiveness metrics, wherein the historical
effectiveness metrics are measured over a time period prior to a
current session in which the agent computer is being assigned
contacts;
wherein the real-time effectiveness metrics and the
historical effectiveness metrics comprise at least one agent
effectiveness metrics element related to multiple simultaneous
contacts being assigned to a contact center agent; and
wherein the real-time effectiveness metrics and the
historical effectiveness metrics comprise at least one of:
average quality score; average customer satisfaction score,
average revenue, average handle duration, or percentage of first
contact resolution;
their respective details.
2
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
determining, by the computer of the contact center, the at
least one agent effectiveness metrics element, said determining
based on the contacts presently being substantially
simultaneously scripted and processed by the agent;
updating, by the computer of the contact center, the
historical effectiveness metrics to calculate updated
effectiveness metrics, said updating based on the determined at
least one agent effectiveness metrics element and the real-time
effectiveness metrics; and
comparing, by the computer of the contact center, the
updated effectiveness metrics with stored target effectiveness
metrics; and
assigning, by the computer of the contact center, a new
contact to the agent computer when the updated effectiveness
metrics is within the target effectiveness metrics.
Rejection3
Claims 1-11 and 13-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter without significantly more. Final
Act. 8-24.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-11 and 13-25 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Brief, pages 17-26.
CLAIMS 1-11 AND 13-25: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants argue all claims as a group in view of the limitations of
Claim 1. See App. Br. 26. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the§ 101
3 The present application was examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
rejections with reference to Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims
collectively herein as "the claims." See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants' arguments are framed by US PTO 2014 guidance
documents. 4 See App. Br. 17-24. Subsequent to the prosecution of this
application, and in response to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit opinions,
the USPTO has issued updated guidance. 5 We review this appeal within the
framework of the Revised Guidance.
35 us.c. § 101
Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
long recognized, however, that § 101 implicitly excludes "[l]aws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" from the realm of patent-eligible
subject matter, as monopolization of these "basic tools of scientific and
technological work" would stifle the very innovation that the patent system
aims to promote. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics,
Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.66, 72-78 (2012); Diamond v. Diehr, 450
4 USPTO, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance Quick Reference Sheet,
available at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/
2014_eligibility_qrs.pdf (hereinafter, "Quick Reference Sheet"); USPTO,
2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79
Fed. Reg.74,618, (Dec. 16, 2014).
5 USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance").
4
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
Under the mandatory Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether
Appellants' claims recite:
1. any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes), and
2. additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim, (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, do we then reach the issue of
whether the claim:
3. adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field ( see MPEP §
2106.05(d)); or
4. simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
Judicial Exceptions
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea
exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited
as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se):
(a) mathematical concepts, 6 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical
6 Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("The concept of hedging ...
reduced to a mathematical formula ... is an unpatentable abstract idea.").
5
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
formulas, equations, 7 and mathematical calculations8; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices
(including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business
relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions)9; and (c) mental processes 10----concepts performed in the human
mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). 11
7 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) ("A mathematical formula as
such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws"); Parker v. Flook,
437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) ("[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula]
cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its
application.").
8 SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to a "series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information" are directed to abstract ideas).
9 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219--20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate
settlement risk is a "fundamental economic practice" and thus an abstract
idea); see Revised Guidance, p. 52, n.13 for a more extensive listing of
"certain methods of organizing human activity" that have been found to
abstract ideas.
10 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Revised Guidance, p. 52,
n.14; see Intellectual Ventures I LLCv. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307,
1318 (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.").
11 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 ("'[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual
6
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
The Examiner finds "[b ]ecause the claims deal with an optimal way to
assign contacts to agents (i.e. assignment of tasks to workers), the claims can
also be considered directed to 'Certain Methods of Organizing Human
Activity."' Final Act. 12.
The Examiner does not specify which limitations correspond to
"assignment of tasks to workers," as found. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "[a]
computer-implemented method for adaptively assigning multiple contacts to
an agent computer in a contact center" and "assigning, by the computer of
the contact center, a new contact to the agent computer." In view of the
Examiner's finding, we first analyze these "assigning" limitations to
determine whether they can be considered as reciting "Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity." On their face, the claims appear not to
involve people, but rather computers. The Examiner quotes Appellants'
Specification: "the present invention generally relate[ s] to contact center
agent assignment management and in particular to a system and method for
adaptively assigning multiple contacts to an agent determined by that agent's
current metrics data or effectiveness measure," to find "the claimed
invention is in the assignment of work to individuals, i.e. assigning the
appropriate amount of work to a person that they can handle." Ans. 4
( quoting Spec. 1 ). The Examiner finds the "assignment of tasks is directed
to the abstract idea of balancing a person's load." Id. Appellants disclose an
agent is a human: "because agents are human, ... an agent's ability to
multi-task may waiver from time to time." Spec., 3. The Examiner finds
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work"' (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)).
7
Appeal2018-000493
Application 12/894,624
the "assigning of tasks to a person to complete based on their capacity to
handle tasks is very clearly the managing of human mental activity, i.e.
managing how many tasks they can perform at one time." Ans. 7.
However, contrary to the Examiner's finding, the claims do not recite
"assigning to an agent." Rather, the claims recite "assigning" "to the agent
computer." The Examiner's finding ignores a term in the claims. By their
own terms, the claims do not assign to a person, the agent, the claims assign
to a computer of the agent. Therefore, the claims do not recite a judicial
exception, i.e., "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity." If, as
here, the claim does not recite a judicial exception, then the claim is eligible
at Prong One of revised Step 2A. This concludes the eligibility analysis.
Revised Guidance, at 54.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims
1, 10, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of Claims 1-11 and 13-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
REVERSED
8