DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed October 7, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 for claims 1-5 and 7-12 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea the claims set forth describe engaging with shoppers to determine whether or not to follow up with the shopper, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Here, the idea is executed using “a processor storing instructions executable by the processor,” “a website,” and “a large language model generative artificial intelligence,” (claims 1 and 5), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-5 and 7-12 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach “a large language model generative artificial intelligence.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation “a large language model generative artificial intelligence," as recited in claims 1 and 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed below, “a large language model generative artificial intelligence” is treated as an “artificial intelligence” platform that engages in conversation with customers as this appears to be Applicant’s intent.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art to teach “engage in concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence, wherein engaging in the concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and the large language model generative artificial intelligence includes emulation of a person by the large language model generative artificial intelligence, receive a contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers, validate the contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers using the large language model generative artificial intelligence, determine a level of interest in the product for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers, and cause the large language model generative artificial intelligence to request a follow up conversation with an online shopper when the level of interest in the product for the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold.” As such, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitations “cause the large language model generative artificial intelligence to request a follow up conversation with an online shopper when the level of interest in the product for the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold," as recited in claim 1 and “requesting a follow up conversation with an online shopper when a level of interest in the product by the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold,” as recited in claim 5 do not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted “when the level of interest in the product for the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold,” step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. As such, the claim limitation will not be given patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims; See MPEP §2111.04 II.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 recites the phrase “a large language model generative artificial intelligence.” This limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 1 and 5, “a large language model generative artificial intelligence” is understood to comprise an “artificial intelligence” that initiates a conversation with a shopper (Current disclosure, Par. [0004]). The original disclosure consistently uses "artificial intelligence" or “AI” to refer to a computer program that utilizes language recognition software to emulate a conversation with a shopper (see Par. [0018]-[0022]) but there is no disclosure with regard to a language model or a generative language model. While the original disclosure suggests there may be an “artificial intelligence” program that executes different aspects of the claimed invention, nowhere in the original disclosure is there a suggestion that the “artificial intelligence” or “AI” is based on “a large language model,” nor the mention of “a large language model generative artificial intelligence.” Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Dependent claims 2-4; and 7-12, which depend from claims 1; and 5 respectively, inherit the deficiencies noted for claims 1; and 5.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are drawn to methods, which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“detect accessing a website by a multiplicity of online shoppers, wherein the website advertises a product,”
“engage in concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers…, wherein engaging in the concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers … includes emulation of a person …,”
“receive a contact information for each of a multiplicity of online shoppers,”
“validate the contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers…,”
“determine a level of interest in the product for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers,”
“… request a follow up conversation with an online shopper when the level of interest in the product for the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold,"
Claim 5 recites/describes the following steps:
“detecting…accessing a website by a multiplicity of online shoppers, wherein the website advertises a product,”
“engaging in concurrent multiple conversations between each of a multiplicity of online shoppers …,”
“receiving a contact information for each of a multiplicity of online shoppers,”
“connecting a call between a salesperson and an online shopper,”
“requesting a follow up conversation with an online shopper when a level of interest in the product by the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold,”
“… to emulate a person during the call.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth engaging with shoppers to determine whether or not to follow up with the shopper, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a processor storing instructions executable by the processor,” “a website,” and “a large language model generative artificial intelligence,” (claims 1 and 5); “a language recognition program” (claims 2, 3, 5, and 7).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a processor storing instructions executable by the processor,” “a website,” and “a large language model generative artificial intelligence,” (claims 1 and 5); “a language recognition program” (claims 2, 3, 5, and 7), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Remaining dependent claims 2-4 and 7-12 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a processor storing instructions executable by the processor,” “a website,” and “a large language model generative artificial intelligence,” (claims 1 and 5); “a language recognition program” (claims 2, 3, 5, and 7), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately.
Remaining dependent claims 2-4 and 7-12 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talmor et al. (US 2019/0043106 A1), hereinafter Talmor in view of Terry et al. (US 2019/0286711 A1), hereinafter Terry; Mazza et al. (US 2019/0182382 A1), hereinafter Mazza; and Desai et al. (US 2020/0311768 A1), hereinafter Desai.
Regarding claim 1, Talmor discloses a processor-implemented method for identifying online shoppers comprising: providing a memory storing instructions executable by the processor (Par, [0184], processor), wherein the instructions comprise instructions to:
detect accessing a website by a multiplicity of online shoppers, wherein the website advertises a product (Par. [0033], advertisement within a webpage of a merchant’s website; Par. [0039], detects user engaging, interaction with messaging interface),
engage in multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence (Par. [0006], [0007], multiple users, immediate and automatic responses by the chatbot; Par. [0055], artificial intelligence to train the chatbot to stimulate conversation; Par. [0097], chatbot platform – Examiner’s note: For purposes of examination, “a large language model generative artificial intelligence” is treated as an artificial intelligence platform that engages in conversation with customers as this appears to be Applicant’s intent, see above), and
determine a level of interest (Par. [0220], level of interest between user and objects) in the product for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers (Par. [0081], conversation exchanges regarding products used to analyze level of interest).
Talmor does not explicitly disclose engage in concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence, wherein engaging in the concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and the large language model generative artificial intelligence includes emulation of a person by the large language model generative artificial intelligence; receive a contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers, and validate the contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers using the large language model generative artificial intelligence; and cause the large language model generative artificial intelligence to request a follow up conversation with an online shopper when the level of interest in the product for the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Terry teaches engage in concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence (Par. [0065], conversation takes place between AI system and user, hundreds or thousands of simultaneous conversations), wherein engaging in the concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and the large language model generative artificial intelligence includes emulation of a person by the artificial intelligence (Par. [0065], AI system includes quirks in behavior to mimic human interaction). Mazza teaches receiving a contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers (Par. [0046], [0144], chatbot receives customer’s contact information), and validating the contact information for each of the multiplicity of online shoppers using the large language model generative artificial intelligence (Par. [0061], system extracts the customer’ phone number, IP address, email address in processing the interaction). Desai teaches cause the large language model generative artificial intelligence to request a follow up conversation with an online shopper (Par. [0024], lead nurturing system send a follow-up message to the shopper) when the level of interest in the product for the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold (Par. [0024], user determined to interact with content specific to a product or service for a specified period of time, “predetermined threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the simultaneous conversation abilities of Terry as a need exists from improved conversations and added functionalities (Terry, Par. [0009]). As in Terry, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the contact center abilities of Mazza as a need exists to reduce the time and cost of configuring a contact center system (Mazza, Par. [0050]). Reducing or eliminating the human work to configure a system for connecting consumer to representative would enable a system to increase the efficiency of the contact center. As in Mazza, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the follow up abilities of Desai as a need exists to opportunities to gain potential clients (Desai, Par. [0001]). As in Desai, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the follow-up abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of taking advantages of opportunities presented to gain potential clients as needed in Talmor.
Regarding claim 2, Talmor discloses wherein, the large language model generative artificial intelligence includes a language recognition program (Par. [0096], artificial intelligence linguistic engine, mark language).
Regarding claim 3, Talmor discloses wherein, the language recognition program enables the large language model generative artificial intelligence to interact with answers other than yes or no (Par. [0098], responses in the forms of questions, conversations).
Regarding claim 4, Talmor discloses wherein, the website includes at least 2 websites (Par. [0033], different websites such as merchant page, user newsfeed, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Talmor discloses a processor-implemented method for identifying and connecting with online shoppers comprising: detecting, by a processor, accessing of a website by a multiplicity of online shoppers, wherein the website advertises a product (Par. [0033], advertisement within a webpage of a merchant’s website), and
engaging in multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence (Par. [0006], [0007], multiple users, immediate and automatic responses by the chatbot; Par. [0055], artificial intelligence to train the chatbot to stimulate conversation; Par. [0097], chatbot platform), wherein, the artificial intelligence includes a language recognition program (Par. [0096], artificial intelligence linguistic engine, mark language – Examiner’s note: For purposes of examination, “a large language model generative artificial intelligence” is treated as an artificial intelligence platform that engages in conversation with customers as this appears to be Applicant’s intent, see above).
Talmor does not explicitly disclose engage in concurrent multiple conversations between each of the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence; receiving a contact information for each of a multiplicity of online shoppers, and connecting a call between a salesperson and an online shopper, and requesting a follow up conversation with an online shopper when a level of interest in the product by the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold, and uses the language recognition program to emulate a person during the call.
Terry teaches engage in concurrent multiple conversations between each the multiplicity of online shoppers and a large language model generative artificial intelligence (Par. [0065], conversation takes place between AI system and user, hundreds or thousands of simultaneous conversations). Mazza teaches receiving a contact information for each of a multiplicity of online shoppers (Par. [0046], [0144], chatbot receives customer’s contact information), connecting a call between a salesperson and an online shopper (Par. [0065], a telephone call connection is made between the customer and the agent), and uses the language recognition program to emulate a person during the call (Par. [0044], [0116]). Desai teaches requesting a follow up conversation with an online shopper (Par. [0024], lead nurturing system send a follow-up message to the shopper) when a level of interest in the product by the online shopper exceeds a predetermined threshold (Par. [0024], user determined to interact with content specific to a product or service for a specified period of time, “predetermined threshold”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the simultaneous conversation abilities of Terry as a need exists from improved conversations and added functionalities (Terry, Par. [0009]). As in Terry, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the contact center abilities of Mazza as a need exists to reduce the time and cost of configuring a contact center system (Mazza, Par. [0050]). Reducing or eliminating the human work to configure a system for connecting consumer to representative would enable a system to increase the efficiency of the contact center. As in Mazza, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the follow up abilities of Desai as a need exists to opportunities to gain potential clients (Desai, Par. [0001]). As in Desai, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the follow-up abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of taking advantages of opportunities presented to gain potential clients as needed in Talmor.
Regarding claim 7, Talmor discloses wherein the language recognition program allows the large language model generative artificial intelligence to interact with answers other than yes or no (Par. [0098], responses in the forms of questions, conversations).
Regarding claim 8, Talmor discloses wherein the website includes at least 2 websites (Par. [0033], different websites such as merchant page, user newsfeed, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Talmor does not explicitly disclose further comprising the large language model generative artificial intelligence validating each of the multiplicity of online shoppers’ contact information. Mazza teaches further comprising the artificial intelligence validating each of the multiplicity of online shoppers’ contact information (Par. [0061], system extracts the customer’s phone number, IP address, email address in processing the interaction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the contact center abilities of Mazza as a need exists to reduce the time and cost of configuring a contact center system (Mazza, Par. [0050]). Reducing or eliminating the human work to configure a system for connecting consumer to representative would enable a system to increase the efficiency of the contact center. As in Mazza, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
Regarding claim 10, Talmor does not explicitly disclose further comprising contacting the salesperson to determine the salesperson's availability. Mazza teaches further comprising contacting the salesperson to determine the salesperson's availability (Par. [0069], system stores agent schedules; Par. [0073], set schedules of agents of the contact center managed to determine agent availabilities to ensure agents to handle interactions workload; Par. [0149], system confirms representative will call customer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the contact center abilities of Mazza as a need exists to reduce the time and cost of configuring a contact center system (Mazza, Par. [0050]). Reducing or eliminating the human work to configure a system for connecting consumer to representative would enable a system to increase the efficiency of the contact center. As in Mazza, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
Regarding claim 11, Talmor does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining each online shopper's interest in contact with the salesperson and scheduling the call between the salesperson and the online shopper. Mazza teaches further comprising determining each online shopper's interest in contact with the salesperson and scheduling the call between the salesperson and the online shopper (Par. [0149], system asks customer to schedule a call with a representative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the contact center abilities of Mazza as a need exists to reduce the time and cost of configuring a contact center system (Mazza, Par. [0050]). Reducing or eliminating the human work to configure a system for connecting consumer to representative would enable a system to increase the efficiency of the contact center. As in Mazza, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
Regarding claim 12, Talmor does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining each of the online shopper's availability, the salesperson's availability, and scheduling the call between the salesperson and the online shopper based upon each of the online shopper's and the salesperson's availability. Mazza teaches further comprising determining each of the online shopper's availability (Par. [0149], system asks customer to schedule a call with a representative), the salesperson's availability (Par. [0069], system stores agent schedules; Par. [0073], set schedules of agents of the contact center managed to determine agent availabilities to ensure agents to handle interactions workload), and scheduling the call between the salesperson and the online shopper based upon each of the online shopper's and the salesperson's availability (Par. [0149], system confirms representative will call customer at scheduled time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the customer service system of Talmor to include the contact center abilities of Mazza as a need exists to reduce the time and cost of configuring a contact center system (Mazza, Par. [0050]). Reducing or eliminating the human work to configure a system for connecting consumer to representative would enable a system to increase the efficiency of the contact center. As in Mazza, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to include the customer connection abilities to service representatives to Talmor’s customer service advertisement conversation system with the predicted result of verifying customers and connecting them representatives that can address their issues as needed in Talmor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628