DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed 7/24/2025. Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, and 23-31 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant’s IDS have been considered. There is no claim to foreign priority.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 7/24/2025, with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 103 (see previous office action) have been fully considered and are persuasive, based on the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view a new combination including at least one of Singaraju et al. and/or Beaver et al. (Beaver, US 2016/0071517) (see rejection below).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 was not correctly amended. Previously presented claim 16, lines 12 and 15, contains different amended language, “. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9, 14, 16, 21, 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surridge et al. (Surridge, US 2015/0189088), in view of Dua et al. (Dua, US 2020/0143114), in view of Chen et al. (Chen, US 2019/00068527) in view of Singaraju et al. (Singaraju, US 2019/0103095).
As per claim 2, Surridge teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
[parsing] a communication defining an action corresponding to a user device (paragraph [0052]-his IMR, interactive media response, server in communication with a user, and natural language utterance by the user, the intent as “upgrade eligibility” determination, Fig. 1, paragraphs [0002, 0070, 0074-0075, 0086, 0087], Fig. 4A, his end user device, agent device, contact center and communication/call routed to the terminal device as the agent device, based on intent, and scores assigned to the intent with respect to agent response and action with respect to resolving the end user intent, and routing action from the user device), wherein the communication is [parsed] to identify one or more operative words associated with the action (ibid-see above intent discussion), and wherein the one or more operative words are used to identify an intent (ibid);
[generating an intent annotation according to a quality of associating between the one or more operative words and the intent];
routing the communication, wherein when the communication is received at a terminal device associated with an agent, a communication session is established between the terminal device and the user device to facilitate execution of the action (Fig. 1, paragraphs [0002, 0070, 0074-0075, 0086, 0087], Fig. 4A, his end user device, agent device, contact center and communication/call routed to the terminal device as the agent device, based on intent, and scores assigned to the intent with respect to agent response and action with respect to resolving the end user intent);
(concurrently) monitor in real-time the communication session and other communication sessions associated with different intents and different terminal devices, wherein the different terminal devices are associated with different agents, [and wherein the different intents correspond to different operative words identified from the other communication sessions] (paragraph [0061, 0005, 0036, 0044-0048, 0099]-his agent real-time and historical performance metrics are generated, his “real time” interactions, and “outcome of interactions” are monitored corresponding evaluation of an agent’s performance, paragraph [0061]-detailing an MAC score, with corresponding metrics, based on the communication, his real-time communication and monitoring discussion as applied to each end user device, paragraph’s [0038, 0070, 0071, 0078], Fig. 1-his multiple end user devices, in communication with multiple agent devices, and his discussion of multiple and different types of intents, associated with the different terminal devices and agents);
[generating other intent annotations according to other qualities of associations among the different operative words and the different intents];
[generating a set of annotated data sets corresponding to the intent annotation, the other intent annotations, and a taxonomy of the one or more operative words and the different operative words];
[updating a dashboard to provide the set of annotated data sets and recommendations for new associations from among different communications, the intent and the different intention];
[detecting selection of an annotated dataset, wherein the selection is detected through the dashboard]; [and
building an intent model [based on the selection, wherein the intent model is used to identify new intents and refine the intent and the different intents according to the taxonomy].
Surridge lacks explicitly teaching that which Dua teaches,
parsing a communication defining an action corresponding to a user device, wherein the communication is parsed to identify one or more operative words associated with the action (paragraphs [0044-0049, 0052)-his parser, annotations mapping to particular actions and intent engine, utilizing the annotated, parsed, output);
generating an intent annotation according to a quality of associating between the one or more operative words and the intent (ibid, paragraph [0049, 0052]-his confidence levels from the intent engine, as the quality of associating between the operative words, “terms”, the explicit, as the operative words/terms with the determined current intent which contain the annotated output from the dialog annotator);
concurrently monitoring in real-time the communication session and other communication sessions (Fig. 1, paragraph [0035]-his multiple user sessions, monitored in “parallel”, thus concurrently, for intent from his intent models, and action models),
and wherein the different intents correspond to different operative words [identified from the other communication sessions] (ibid, Dua, paragraph [0035, 0054]-his different intents, and corresponding different operative words). (paragraph [0054]-his “schedule an oil change” and “fix plumbing issue intent”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge and Dua to combine the prior art element of monitoring communications from his various devices, and aggregating metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with concurrently monitoring the communications in parallel as taught by Dua as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing multiple device sessions, to concurrently be processed, facilitating agent actions according to intents to be concurrently processed (ibid-Dua, Fig. 1, abstract and paragraph [0035]).
Chen teaches, that which the above combination lacks, and wherein the different intents correspond to different operative words identified from the other communication sessions (paragraphs [0035-0039], Fig. 3-his explicit plurality of users, in concurrent communication with the system, and those conversation inputs, having explicit different intents corresponding to different operative words, identified from the other communication sessions, Fig. 3, each concurrent communication session, parsed with the operative words, identified);
generating other intent annotations according to other qualities of associations among the different operative words and the different intents (ibid-his intent model, classified-the classification model as determining the quality of association, for each and all of the plurality of users, based on the words, and including the annotations); and
building an intent model (ibid, paragraph [0039]-his constructed “intent model” and corresponding intent annotations, see user intent, the entire plurality of users discussion, the intent model representing the “taxonomy” into which input is classified, thus, each intent placed into the model, as the refinement, and new intents from the conversation are identified by the taxonomy, based on the classification).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge and Dua and Chen to combine the prior art element of monitoring communications from his various devices, and aggregating metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with concurrently monitoring the communications in parallel as taught by Dua with the explicit different communication sessions having different intents, and using an intent model taxonomy to classify/refine intents into the model, while determining new intents as taught by Chen as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing multiple device sessions, to concurrently be processed, facilitating agent actions according to different intents to be concurrently processed, from different users (ibid-Dua, Fig. 1, abstract and paragraph [0035], ibid Chen).
The above combination lacks teaching that which Singaraju teaches, generating a set of annotated data sets corresponding to the intent annotation, the other intent annotations, and a taxonomy of the one or more operative words and the different operative words (paragraphs [0072, 0043]-his generated intent samples including annotations or labels indicating the user intents, from users communications, thus intention annotation, other intention annotations, and his classification model of intent words);
updating a dashboard to provide the set of annotated data sets and recommendations for new associations from among different communications, the intent and the different intention (Figs. 5, 7, which included a dashboard to provide the set of annotated data sets and suggestions, see Fig. 7 items 710, 712, 704, Fig. 9-which includes recommendations for new associations, item 930, 910-amond the different communications the intent, and different intentions, see his intents with suggestions, paragraphs [0091, 0062]-which detail the dashboard, his GUI screen and recommendations, intention and different intentions).
detecting selection of an annotated dataset, wherein the selection is detected through the dashboard (ibid, Figs. 7-Fig. 9, paragraphs [0086-0091] his dashboard and user selection, the item selected, as the annotated dataset, items 710, 712); and
building an intent model based on the selection, wherein the intent model is used to identify new intents and refine the intent and the different intents according to the taxonomy (ibid-see also his abstract, Fig. 10 items 1070, 1080-his improving the quality of his intent classification model, suggested new intents, based on user-selectable options, and training/retraining his classification model).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge, Dua, Chen and Singaraju to combine the prior art element of metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with an interface for receiving suggestions to add communication information to an intent model, in order to train the model for classification as taught by Singaraju as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would training the intent model using user interaction and suggested or recommended data (ibid-Singaraju).
As per claims 7, 14 and 21, Surridge makes obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the dashboard is further updated to present a graphical representation of the intent and the different intents (Fig. 3, Fig. 4A, paragraph [0071, 0072, 0082, 0085]- his multiple agents, dashboard displaying a corresponding particular type of intent, his routing groups associated with corresponding intents, Figs. 7A-9A, his “intention group”, comprising different intents).
As per claim 9, claim 9 sets forth limitations similar to claim 2 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the system is deemed to embody the method, wherein Surridge teaches a system, comprising: one or more processors (Figs. 10A, 10B, paragraphs [0142-0153]-see his system, processor(s), memory storing instructions); and memory storing thereon instructions that, as a result of being executed by the one or more processors (ibid), cause the system to (ibid): Surridge with Dua with Chen with Singaraju further make obvious and teach to:
parse a communication defining an action corresponding to a user device, wherein the communication is parsed to identify one or more operative words associated with the action and wherein the one or more operative words are used to identify an intent (ibid-see claim 2, corresponding and similar limitation);
generate an intent annotation according to a quality of association between the one or more operative words and the intent (ibid);
route the communication (ibid-see claim 2, corresponding and similar limitation), wherein when the communication is received at a terminal device associated with an agent (ibid), a communication session is established between the terminal device and the user device to facilitate execution of the action (ibid);
concurrently monitor in real-time the communication session and other communication sessions associated with different intents and different terminal devices, wherein the different terminal devices are associated with different agents (ibid), and wherein the different intents correspond to different operative words identified from the other communication sessions (ibid);
generate other intent annotations according to other qualities of associations among the different operative words and the different intents (ibid);
generate a set of annotated data sets corresponding to the intent annotation, the other intent annotations, and a taxonomy of the one or more operative words and the different operative words (ibid);
update a dashboard to provide the set of annotated data sets and recommendations for new associations among different communications, the intent, and the different intents (ibid);
detect selection of an annotated data set, wherein the selection is detected through the dashboard (ibid); and
build an intent model based on the selection, wherein the intent model is used to identify new intents and refine the intent and the different intents according to the taxonomy (ibid).
As per claim 16, claim 16 sets forth limitations similar to claim 2 and is thus rejected under similar reasons and rationale, wherein the computer readable medium is deemed to embody the method, such that Surridge teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions that, as a result of being executed by one or more processors of a computer system (Figs. 10A, 10B, paragraphs [0142-0153]-see his system, processor(s), memory storing instructions, non-transitory computer readable media), cause the computer system to: wherein Surridge with Dua with Chen with Singaraju further make obvious and teaching to: parse a communication defining an action corresponding to a user device, wherein the communication is parsed to identify one or more operative words associated with the action (ibid-see claim 2, corresponding and similar limitation) and wherein the one or more operative words are used to identify an intent (ibid); generate an intent annotation according to a quality of association between the one or more operative words and the intent (ibid);
route the communication (ibid-see claim 2, corresponding and similar limitation), wherein when the communication is received at a terminal device associated with an agent, a communication session is established between the terminal device and the user device to facilitate execution of the action (ibid); concurrently monitor in real-time the communication session and other communication sessions associated with different intents and different terminal devices, wherein the different terminal devices are associated with different agents (ibid), and wherein the different intents correspond to different operative words identified from the other communication sessions (ibid); generate other intent annotations according to other qualities of associations among the different operative words and the different intents (ibid);
generate a set of annotated data sets corresponding to the intent annotation, the other intent annotations, and a taxonomy of the one or more operative words and the different operative words (ibid); update a dashboard to provide the set of annotated data sets and recommendations for new associations among different communications, the intent and the different intents (ibid);
detect selection of an annotated data set, wherein the selection is detected through the dashboard (ibid); and build an intent model based on the selection, wherein the intent model is used to identify new intents and refine the intent and the different intents according to the taxonomy (ibid).
As per claims 23, 24 and 25, Surridge makes obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the intent and the different intents are associated with a set of semantic clusters (Figs. 7A-9F-his intention group(s), wherein each group is deemed a semantic cluster, “Mobile Sales New”, “Mobile Sales Recontract”, “Service”, etc., paragraphs [0114-0126]), and wherein the communication session and the other communication sessions are concurrently monitored according to the set of semantic clusters to detect the intent and the different intents (ibid, see claim 2 concurrently monitoring discussion, Dua paragraph [0035], see also, Surridge-paragraph [0132, 0133]-see his monitored and tracked customer communications from the customers, the monitoring and reporting is based against the set of intents/goals as clustered/grouped).
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surridge et al. (Surridge, US 2015/0189088), in view of Dua et al. (Dua, US 2020/0143114), in view of Chen et al. (Chen, US 2019/00068527) in view of Singaraju et al. (Singaraju, US 2019/0103095), as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Beaver et al. (Beaver, US 2016/0071517).
As per claims 29, 30 and 31, Surridge with Dua with Chen with Singaraju makes obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
updating the dashboard to provide a set of evaluation results [and insights] corresponding to the intent model, wherein the set of evaluation results and the insights are provided based on processing of the annotated data set through the intent model (ibid-Singaragu, see Fig. 5, paragraph [0087]-his evaluation, items 510-530, as item 570, all processing through the classification model, see Fig. 7 items 102-720, and also including quality evaluations).
The above combination lacks teaching that which Beaver teaches updating the dashboard to provide a set of evaluation results and insights corresponding to the intent model, wherein the set of evaluation results and the insights are provided based on processing of the annotated data set through the intent model (Fig. 6, paragraphs [0082, 0083]-as including evaluation and insights, with respect to the additional information relating to the intent unit as presented).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge, Dua, Chen and Singaraju and Beaver to combine the prior art element of metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with an interface for receiving suggestions, displaying evaluatiosn based on an intent model, in order to train the model for classification as taught by Singaraju with the display further including additional information relating to the intent, to include evaluation and insight results, as taught by Beaver as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would training the intent model using user interaction and suggested or recommended data (ibid-Singaraju, ibid-Beaver).
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11, 13, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surridge in view of Dua, in view of Chen in view of Singaraju, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gustafson et al. (Gustafson, US 2016/03868115).
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Surridge makes obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
[updating the dashboard to present messages exchanged during the communication session and] a set of communication metrics corresponding to the agent, wherein the set of communication metrics is generated based on an assessment of a quality of a communication exchange in the communication session (paragraph [0061, 0005, 0036, 0044-0048, 0099]-his agent real-time and historical performance metrics are generated, his “real time” interactions, and “outcome of interactions” are monitored corresponding evaluation of an agent’s performance, paragraph [0061]-detailing an MAC score, with corresponding metrics, based on the communication);
but lacks the method further comprising: that which is taught by Gustafson, updating the dashboard to present messages exchanged during the communication session and a set of communication metrics (paragraph [0026]-his analytics provider for review by supervisor, Fig. 3, the communication session including the “recordings”, “chat logs, emails, and other communications, as well as quality data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge and Gustafson and to combine the prior art element of aggregating metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with providing messages exchanged during the communication session as taught by Gustafson as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing a supervisor or administrator to view a list of agents and corresponding performances and messages (ibid-Gustafson).
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Surridge makes obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the dashboard is further updated to present [sentiment]s by individual intent, conversation duration by the individual intents, number of participating agents, number of conversations per hour, and average duration of different communication sessions (ibid, paragraph [0021]- see Surridge MAC and intent discussion, Figs. 2A, 2B, 3, 4A-as including sentiment by intents via scores, number of agents, average conversation/talk durations from different communication sessions, work hours and corresponding conversations/interactions, wherein the MAC scores for the different agents are based on “a particular type of intent”, thus the associated metrics, sentiment and duration, are based on the individual and particular type of intent).
Gustafson teaches that which Surridge lacks, conversation duration by intent, sentiments by individual intents (Fig. 3-his attributes during interaction, including sentiments and corresponding durations).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge and Gustafson and Miller to combine the prior art element of metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with providing messages exchanged during the communication session as taught by Gustafson as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would be allowing a supervisor or administrator to view a list of agents and corresponding performances and different metrics (Miller, C.17 lines 27-67, ibid-Gustafson).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surridge in view of Dua, in view of Chen, in view of Miller in view of Mammen, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Singaraju et al. (Singaraju, US 2019/0103095)
As per claim 26, 27 and 28, Surridge with Dua with Chen with Miller with Mammen make obvious the computer-implemented method of claim 2, but lack further comprising, that which Singaraju teaches:
updating the dashboard to provide an interface for reviewing the intent model, wherein the dashboard is updated to provide recommendations for additional communications to be associated with the intent and the different intents according to the taxonomy and the intent model (paragraphs [0089-0092, 0002, 0063-0064,], Fig. 9-his graphical user interface as his dashboard, and suggestions to add intents from “live communication” with customers and end users, for training his hierarchical/taxonomy intent model, see abstract and ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the linguistics art, before the effective filing date of the invention, as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (computer implemented techniques and algorithms combining processes and steps in natural language processing), in view of the teachings of Surridge and Gustafson and Miller to combine the prior art element of metrics correspond to agent(s) performance(s) and presenting the results on an interface/dashboard as taught by Surridge with an interface for receiving suggestions to add communication information to an intent model, in order to train the model for classification as taught by Singaraju as each element performs the same function as it does separately, as the combination would yield predictable results, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US. -- 82 USPQ2nd 1385 (2007), wherein the predictable result would training the intent model using user interaction and suggested or recommended data (ibid-Singaraju).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LAMONT M SPOONER whose telephone number is (571)272-7613. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM -5:00 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, Daniel Washburn can be reached on (571)272-5551. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAMONT M SPOONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657
9/25/2025