DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to claim amendment filed on 10/06/2025.
Claims 1 and 20-21 are independent claims, and are amended.
Claims 22-26 are added as the new claims.
Claims 1-26 are pending in this application and presenting for examination.
This Action has been made FINAL.
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 .
Continuity
The instant application is being relationship to the PCT/US23/83186 filed on 12/08/2023.
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 1-4, 14, 19-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al., Pub. No. 2023/0054726 (hereinafter “Roy”), SHOAF, US Pub. No. 2022/0309251 (hereinafter as “Shoaf”) in view of Brill et al., US Pub. No. 2006/0074870 (hereinafter as “Brill”), and further in view of Tsuchida et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0100543 (hereinafter as “Tsuchida”).
Regarding claim 1, Roy teaches: a processor-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a query that is submitted via a user interface (par. [0008] “receive an input data object including textual data of a conversation”, wherein the input data object is interpreted as the query, par. [0059] e.g., “a user interface” and/or “a user input interface” which is allowed user/caller submits input data or query, and par. [0116] e.g., “an API call comprising the input data object transmitted by the client computing entity 102.”), the query comprising at least one query token comprising terms or phrases appearing in corresponding to unstructured telephone call content information (par. [0028] “The term “input data object” may refer to a data entity configured to describe a conversation between at least two parties, entities, individuals, persons, and/or the like. Specifically, the input data object may be and/or may comprise a textual representation or textual data of the conversation. For example, the conversation may be a telephonic interaction, and the input data object comprises textual data derived from the telephonic interaction. As another example, the conversation may be a text-based conversation (e.g., a live or real-time online chat, an e-mail conversation, and/or the like), and the input data object comprises textual data found in the text-based conversation. The input data object may comprise textual data in a structured format to at least an extent…. Each sentence-level token comprising one or more word-level tokens.”, par. [0029] “The term “word-level token” may refer to a data entity configured to describe an individual word, lexical unit, exclamation, syllable, and/or the like, of a conversation between at least two parties. As discussed, the input data object may comprise textual data structured as a plurality of sentence-level tokens, each sentence-level token comprising one or more word-level tokens. Stated otherwise, the input data object may comprise textual data structure as a plurality of word-level tokens. Word-level tokens may be generated by a variety of textual tokenization methods, operations, functions, and/or techniques that may separate individual words in textual data. In various embodiments, different textual tokenization methods may be used based at least in part on delimiters (e.g., spaces, tabs, periods, commas, line breaks). A word-level token may specifically be a string, array, data structure, embeddings, and/or the like, of one or more characters or character representations that compose a described word.” which also teaches the unstructured information, see further in pars. [0057] via concepts such as “Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD), Short Message Service (SMS),…”, and [0001] e.g., “A call transcript”, [0002] e.g., “ text-based summarization of a conversation in the form of a textual transcript”, and [0066] “the textual data of an input data object is a telephonic conversation transcript, or transcribed text from a telephonic conversation” which is included the unstructured telephone call content information).
However, Roy does not disclose or teach: “searching a datastore based on the at least one query token to recover a plurality of call records corresponding to the at least one query token”, and “enhancing link information for each of the plurality of call records based on associated metadata; adjusting at least one link display attribute based on the enhanced link information; preparing a graph comprising nodes and links, wherein each of the nodes corresponds to at least one caller identifier and each of the links corresponds to one of the plurality of call records; wherein at least one of the links is configured for display according to the at least one link display attribute; and providing the graph for display via the user interface.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Shoaf teaches:
searching a datastore based on the at least one query token to recover a plurality of call records corresponding to the at least one query token (pars. [0035-36], wherein the “database 152” is interpreted as the datastore which is used to store the plurality call records, and also [0036] “the contact center control system 142 may have access not only to data collected within the contact center 100 but also data made available by external sources such as a third party database 154. In certain embodiments, the control system 142 may query the third party database for contact data such as credit reports, past transaction data, and other structured and unstructured data”; and see further in pars. [0041] for technique of searching a datastore/database based on the key phrases as query token, and [0102] e.g., “Memory may be used to store visual representations of the different options for searching”. These quotations are taught the technique of searching at least a datastore: e.g., database 152 or external source, e.g., a third party database 154 or memory for call data/information as call records).
Roy and Shoaf are analogous because they are directed to the same field of endeavor as data processing for the received query comprises token having text data as terms or phrases appearing in the unstructured telephone call content information as call/text/conversation transcript(s).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Shoaf would have provided Roy with the above indicated limitations of searching a datastore based on received query token to recover/retrieve call records for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the call/conversation/text transcript(s) (Shoaf: Fig. 3, and pars. [0014, 17, 35-36] and [0041 and 102]).
Roy teaches the receiving query as input data object including textual data of a conversation, where the conversation may be a telephonic interaction, and the input data object comprises textual data derived from the telephonic interaction. As another example, the conversation may be a text-based conversation (e.g., a live or real-time online chat, an e-mail conversation, and/or the like), and the input data object comprises textual data found in the text-based conversation (see pars. [0028-30]). In the same field of endeavor, Shoaf clearly teaches about receiving “Speech Stream” and “Chat Stream” as an input query (see Fig. 3), an unstructured telephone call or video conference call, and receive, evaluate, and store telephone calls, emails, and fax messages as data/metadata information/call records in the database(s) (see pars. [0033-36]).
However, Roy and Shoaf do not explicitly teach: “enhancing link information for each of the plurality of call records based on associated metadata; adjusting at least one link display attribute based on the enhanced link information; preparing a graph comprising nodes and links, wherein each of the nodes corresponds to at least one caller identifier and each of the links corresponds to one of the plurality of call records; wherein at least one of the links is configured for display according to the at least one link display attribute; and providing the graph for display via the user interface.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Brill teaches:
enhancing link information for each of the plurality of call records based on associated metadata (par. [0021] e.g., “large information collections”; par. [0026] e.g., “The query graph user interface component 302 can also utilize schema information 308 and/or user preferences 310 as well to facilitate in enhancing the query graph input 304. The schema information 308 can include, but is not limited to, overlays for the query graph, icons for depicting the nodes of the query graph, and appearance information such as, for example, colors, line thicknesses of the edges of the query graph, and other visual and/or audible indicators and the like” which technically teaches enhancing links and enhances the links based on attributes associated with the data and/or metadata, see further in par. [0027] e.g., “employing a third dimension to indicate time such as the age of query-related information depicted by placement of the nodes of a query graph. For example, older nodes can appear further in the background than more current nodes. Overlays can also be employed over the query graph to facilitate in relaying the information to different types of users…”; and par. [0050] “The derived user preferences can be obtained from environmental factors and/or situational awareness factors and the like. Thus, time-of-day, activity of the user (e.g., on the telephone, computing, and talking with others in office and the like), and/or general overall purpose of a search and the like can be employed by the present invention to facilitate in constructing a query graph”);
adjusting at least one link display attribute based on the enhanced link information (pars. [0025] “The user session information 218 can include, but is not limited to, such information as prior user queries, user querying trends, and/or last user query and the like. This type of information facilitates the query graph generation component to exclude any irrelevant data and/or enhance the query graph to improve a user's satisfaction and/or query graph readability and the like. The query graph generation component 206 can also utilize graphical and/or text-based user interface data to customize the generation and appearance of the query graph 214. This can include, but is not limited to, constructing a query graph that comprises a listing of at least one query. In this instance, the listing includes node(s) of a query graph with or without depicting edges of the query graph”, wherein the technique of “customize” is equivalent to “adjusting”, appearance of the query graph is illustrated to link display attribute, and [0026] “… icons for depicting the nodes of the query graph, and appearance information such as, for example, colors, line thicknesses of the edges of the query graph, and other visual and/or audible indicators and the like. The query graph can also be displayed to a user as a listing of recommended and/or related queries”, and [0027 and 31], and Figs. 3-4 for the link display attribute and enhanced link information; and further in par. [0054] “This information can include, but is not limited to appearance information such as, for example, colors, line thickness of edges, line consistency of edges, and other visual indicators; use of graphical images such as, for example, icons for nodes of the query graph; and/or overlays and the like. By incorporating overlays and/or icons, the present invention provides a flexible interface that can be adjusted based on user preferences”);
preparing a graph comprising nodes and links (Fig. 4 is shown the graph with nodes and links/edges; pars. [0049] “initiate a query graph”, [0050]: “initiate the construction of a query graph”, and [0054] “The query graph can be automatically derived as described supra. User preference and/or schema information is then obtained 706. This information can include, but is not limited to appearance information such as, for example, colors, line thickness of edges, line consistency of edges, and other visual indicators; use of graphical images such as, for example, icons for nodes of the query graph”).
wherein at least one of the links is configured for display according to the at least one link display attribute (see Figs. 3 such user’s preferences and schema information/attributed for displaying the graph is shown in Fig. 4; pars. [0008], [0025-26], and [0027] “The query graph user interface component 302 can also employ dimensional attributes to allow additional dimensions to be utilized in relaying information to the user 306”; and further in par. [0031]); and
providing the graph for display via the user interface (see Fig. 4 for providing the query graph displaying via user inface, par. [0008], and pars. [0025] and [0026]: “Because the query graph is navigable, the query graph user interface component 302 interacts with the user 306 to permit alterations of the query graph input 304 and additionally interfaces with a search system 312 to derive additional query graphs when required. The query graph user interface component 302 can also utilize schema information 308 and/or user preferences 310 as well to facilitate in enhancing the query graph input 304. The schema information 308 can include, but is not limited to, overlays for the query graph, icons for depicting the nodes of the query graph, and appearance information such as, for example, colors, line thicknesses of the edges of the query graph, and other visual and/or audible indicators and the like. The query graph can also be displayed to a user as a listing of recommended and/or related queries.”)
Roy, Shoaf and Brill are analogous because they are directed to the same field of endeavor as data processing and/or information retrieving for receiving query/input data, searching/retrieving stored call records for preparing and building graph having structure of links/nodes and edges, which is build based on the unstructured telephone called content information, data/metadata, and customize/adjust the link display attribute based on the information and providing the graph for display via the user interface.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Brill would have provided Roy and Shoaf with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform the links’ attribute and information for displaying graph via user interface (Brill: Figs. 3-4, and pars. [0008, 25-26, 31-39]).
However, Roy, Shoaf and Brill do not explicitly teach: “wherein each of the nodes corresponds to at least one caller identifier and each of the links corresponds to one of the plurality of call records.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Tsuchida teaches: “wherein each of the nodes corresponds to at least one caller identifier and each of the links corresponds to one of the plurality of call records” (Fig. 3B is shown the graph has the edges (element 500) correspond to the call records, and the nodes (element 500’) correspond to caller identifiers, see further in pars. [0063-67]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Tsuchida would have provided Roy, Shoaf, and Brill with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation for building structure of graph with nodes corresponding to caller identifier and links/edges corresponding to one of call records (Tsuchida: Figs. 3B, elements 500 and 500’; and pars. [0063-67]).
Regarding claim 2, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida, in combination, teach:
acquiring the plurality of call records (Roy: e.g., call conversation, par. [0028-30]; Shoaf: Fig. 3, e.g., speech stream and chat streams from data source, and par. [0017]; Brill: pars. [0014 and 17]), each call record including a call transcription and the metadata (Shoaf: par. [0014] “a speech to text service is used to transcribe the contents of a call interaction, and the transcript is passed to a natural language processor, ... This analysis data and the transcript can then be passed to a trained neural network”; Brill: pars. [0021 and 26-27] as explained above to claim 1);
generating a searchable index for searching the datastore (Brill: par. [0005] disclose technique of search index/indexes, and algorithm to create indices), the searchable index being based on the call transcription and the metadata for each of the plurality of call records (Shoaf: Fig. 3, par. [0014] “a speech to text service is used to transcribe the contents of a call interaction, and the transcript is passed to a natural language processor, ... This analysis data and the transcript can then be passed to a trained neural network”; par. [0017] for call records and [0036] e.g., “a query the third party database for contact data…, and other structured and unstructured data”; and Brill: pars. [0026-27]); and
storing the searchable index (Brill: see Fig. 9, and par. [0005]: index is stored in the computing storage, e.g., databases and/or memory).
Regarding claim 3, Shoaf, Brill and Tsuchida, in combination, teach: wherein enhancing link information further comprises enhancing temporal information associated with the link (Shoaf: pars. [0014, 41, 45-47] teaches date/time enhance to temporal information; Brill: pars. [0026-27] e.g., “indicate time such as the age of query-related information…”, and [0050] “time-of-day, activity of the user (e.g., on the telephone, computing, and talking with others in office and the like)”; and Tsuchida: Fig. 4, element 504 and 1205: wherein “TIME” and/or “DURATION” is/are interpreted as the temporal information associated to the call ID which presents in the graph as node(s) and CALL-from and CALL-to as edges/links, see Fig. 3B, elements 500 and 500’).
Regarding claim 4, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida, in combination, teach: wherein enhancing link information further comprises enhancing spatial information associated with the link (Shoaf: see pars. [0034, 41 and 45] e.g., location, address, places of caller as enhanced to spatial information; Brill: pars. [0008] and [0025-27] and [0054-55] such that enhancing “color” and “line thickness” of the graph displaying via user interface is interpreted as the spatial information, see Figs. 3-4; and Tsuchida: pars. [0004-6], e.g., “the distance approximation property of data” in database(s) to form a graph having nodes and edges/links, see in Fig. 3B, and par. [0123], e.g., “distance” from plurality customers is interpreted as the “spatial information”).
Regarding claim 14, Brill and Tsuchida, in combination, teach:
wherein the visualization control is operative to generate a structural visualization of the graph (Brill: see Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, e.g., query graph displaying as a structure visualization of the graph; and Tsuchida: Fig. 3B as shown graph with nodes and links/edges; and pars. [0051-64]).
Regarding claim 19, Roy and Shoaf, in combination, teach: wherein the unstructured telephone call content information comprises one or more words in a call transcript (Roy: see pars. [0028-30]; Shoaf: pars. [0014] “a speech to text service is used to transcribe the contents of a call interaction, and the transcript is passed to a natural language processor, ... This analysis data and the transcript can then be passed to a trained neural network”; [0017] and [0033]: “the audio from an unstructured telephone call or video conference session (or any other communication channel involving audio or video, e.g., a Skype call) may be transcribed manually or automatically and stored in association with the original audio or video... For example, control system 142 can receive, evaluate, and store telephone calls, emails, and fax messages.”).
Regarding independent claim 20 (An apparatus comprising: a processor and a memory) and independent claim 21 (A processor-accessible, non-transitory medium excluding signal storing the program instructions), the claims recite similar limitations to claim 1, thus, the claim are rejected in the same analysis of the above claim 1; and therefore, the claims 20 and 21 are rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 22, Brill teaches: “wherein the at least one link display attribute comprises a line thickness” (see pars. [0026] “colors, line thicknesses of the edges of the query graph, and other visual and/or audible indicators and the like. The query graph can also be displayed to a user as a listing of recommended and/or related queries”, and [0031] e.g., “varied in thickness” of the edges).
Regarding claim 23, Shoaf, and Brill, in combination, teach: “wherein the line thickness depends on a number of calls connected nodes” (Shoaf: par. [0034] e.g., “the number and length of calls placed to the contact center…”; and Brill: pars. [0026] teaches the line thickness of the edges/links between nodes of the graph, [0031] “The edges 410 can be varied in thickness, represented by a string of geometric shapes to form a line, colored, and/or dashed and the like to indicate various strengths of the associations.” ).
Regarding claim 24, Brill teaches: “wherein the at least one link display attribute comprises a grouping of links and associated nodes according to the associated metadata” (Brill: see Fig. 4 for grouping of links and associated nodes in various groups/clusters; pars. [0026-27] teach attributes, information, collections implement metadata, and [0031] “The edges 410 can be varied in thickness, represented by a string of geometric shapes to form a line, colored, and/or dashed and the like to indicate various strengths of the associations. The nodes 408 can also be grouped/clustered to indicate groupings that are more related/similar than other query-related nodes…”).
Regarding claim 26, Roy and Shoaf teach: “wherein the unstructured telephone call content information comprises at least one of audio content information and text message content information” (Roy: pars. [0028] “For example, the conversation may be a telephonic interaction, and the input data object comprises textual data derived from the telephonic interaction. As another example, the conversation may be a text-based conversation (e.g., a live or real-time online chat, an e-mail conversation, and/or the like)”, and [0029]; Shoaf: par. [0017] “the contact center 100 records all of the contact calls in uncompressed audio formats”; pars. [0027] “provide telephony or multimedia data images, video, text or audio”, and [0028] e.g., “audio and video stream…”, and “permits users to make point-to-point audio and video phone calls over a local area network”; and further in par. [0033] “the audio from an unstructured telephone call or video conference session (or any other communication channel involving audio or video, e.g., a Skype call) may be transcribed manually or automatically and stored in association with the original audio or video”).
Claims 5-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida, and further in view of Eick et al., US Patent No. 5,596,703 (hereinafter as “Eick”).
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. Furthermore, Brill teaches customize the graph via user’s changed input query/data as user preferences via user interface (see Figs. 3-4; and pars. [0008, 25-27]). However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach: “providing at least one visualization control via a user interface, the visualization control operative to change the display of the graph.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Eick teaches: providing at least one visualization control via a user interface, the visualization control operative to change the display of the graph (e.g., “zoom” in/out to change the display of the graph, see in Fig. 6 and Col. 2, lines 15-19; and further Col. 4, lines 54-67, and Col. 6, lines 66-67, e.g., “Sliders” change the size of nodes and edges/links. Thus, the “zoom” and “Sliders” are interpreted as the visualization control via the user interface).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Eick would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation for changing the display of graph more efficient (Eick: Figs. 3, and Cols. 2, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, Tsuchida and Eick, in combination, teach: wherein the visualization control is operative to cluster the nodes of the graph according to at least one relationship between the plurality of call records (Tsuchida: see pars. [0110-111] disclose the cluster nodes/all nodes according to the at least one relationship between the call records as shown in Fig. 3B and Fig. 4, in combination; and Eick: Fig.3 and Col. 11, lines 47-56: “the program rearranges it so that nodes having more significant relationships to each other in terms of the statistic used to determine the color of the links and the value of weight field 433 tend to cluster. The algorithm used to make the nodes cluster…”).
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, Eick teaches: wherein the visualization control is operative to identify most active links in the graph (Col. 2, lines 15-19: “Buttons in the lower right-hand corner of FIG. 6, finally, permit the user to "zoom" into or out of an area of the display, to extend an edge 603 which is not being completely displayed, and to toggle between a display of the presently-active nodes” wherein the “presently-active nodes” inherit to the most presently-active link(s) because the link(s) is connected the active nodes in the graph, see Fig. 3 as known by a skill artisan in the technical field of tree/graph structure).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, Eick teaches: wherein the visualization control is operative to identify a set of most-connected nodes in the graph (Col. 2, lines 33-49: “arranging the nodes of the graph in such fashion that nodes which have more significant relationships with each other than with other nodes are placed in groups in which the density of nodes in the area within a group is higher than the density of nodes in the area around the group. The nodes in the groups are thus visually set apart from other nodes in the area around the group. Additionally, the groups are arranged such that the groups whose nodes have the most significant relationships appear near the center of the area.”, wherein the “most significant relationships” having high density of nodes are interpreted as the most-connected nodes in graph visually).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, Eick teaches the “number of calls” representing in graph (see in Fig. 3, elements 319 and 323), and “sliders 325 and 329 scale the node and link size established by the statistics in the relevant “Size” slots” (col. 6, lines 49-67). Also, Brill and Eick, in combination, teach: “wherein the visualization control is operative (Eick: Fig. 6, e.g., “zoom” in/out to change the display of the graph; and Col. 2, lines 15-19; and further Col. 4, lines 54-67, and Col. 6, lines 66-67, e.g., “Sliders” change the size of nodes and edges/links. Thus, the “zoom” and “Sliders” are interpreted as the visualization control via the user interface) to determine popularity associated with the nodes in the graph.” (Brill: pars. [0031] “The edges 410 can be varied in thickness, represented by a string of geometric shapes to form a line, colored, and/or dashed and the like to indicate various strengths of the associations. The nodes 408 can also be grouped/clustered to indicate groupings that are more related/similar than other query-related nodes”, and [0037-39] teach “popularity”; and Eick: Fig. 3, element 319 and 323, e.g., “number of calls” is interpreted as the popularity; Col. 6, lines 49-67, e.g., “sliders 325 and 329 scale the node and link size established by the statistics in the relevant “Size” slots”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida, and further in view of Morris, US Pub. No. 2005/0180400 (hereinafter as “Morris”).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1 and claim 5. However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach “identify network gatekeepers in the graph.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Morris teaches the limitation “identify network gatekeepers in the graph.” (Fig. 3 is shown as directed/connect graph, and par. [0009]: “communicating the input numbers to a first network gatekeeper having a call forwarding table, wherein the input numbers are manipulated based on processing parameters, identifying a gateway based on the manipulated numbers, establishing a connection with the identified gateway, establishing a connection between the identified gateway and a second network gatekeeper, establishing a connection between the second network gatekeeper and the second endpoint… through the established connections”, and pars. [0020, and 48-49]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Morris would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida with the above identified network gatekeepers for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to perform connecting/routing incoming and outgoing calls via cloud network expectation of communication (Morris: Figs. 3-6; Abstract, and pars. [0009 and 20]).
Claims 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick, and further in view of Eckardt et al., US Pub. No. 2021/0073251 (hereinafter as “Eckardt”).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. However, However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick do not explicitly teach “… determine a PageRank® importance measure associated with at least one of the nodes in the graph.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Eckardt teaches: “determine a PageRank® importance measure associated with at least one of the nodes in the graph.” (see Fig. 3, element 253 “Rank is at most” slider to adjust/change ranking rate in visualization control mode; further in par. [0016] “Relevance rankings have been estimated in various means including; frequency of use of search terms, location of search terms within the document, and perceived “importance/usefulness” of the documents in the result set. Perhaps the best example of result ranking is Google's page rank metric which is based on the number of other web pages that link to the search result page.”, wherein the “Google’s page rank metric” is illustrated to the PageRank as known by a skill artisan, and Fig. 9 as shown the popularity associated with the nodes and par. [0187] teaches the nodes of graph)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Eckardt would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation for modifying the teachings by using the PageRank® mentioned in Eckardt, because such systems and methods allow for calculating relevance of nodes and edges/links in a graph structure (Eckardt: Figs. 3 and 8; and par. [0016]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. Furthermore, Brill teaches the “generating query graph” as visual graph displaying via user interface (see Fig. 4 and par. [0050] “constructing a query graph”). However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick do not explicitly teach: “…generate an organic visualization of the graph.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Eckardt teaches: “wherein the visualization control is operative to generate an organic visualization of the graph.” (par. [0070] “Each one of these tools is capable of creating a network graph”, pars. [0071] “Choosing alternative layout algorithms”, and [0072-73] “Sizing/coloring/selecting shape of nodes based on the value of an attribute”; and further in pars. [0141] “Representing nodes—Nodes can be displayed as a basic shape (e.g., a circle, oval, square, rectangle, etc.)”, and [0201] via “the meta-center of meta-node”; Figs. 10-19 as shown the organic visualization of the graph)
*** Examiner’s note: the claim limitation is disclosed in Applicant’s paragraph [0045] “FIGURE 8F shows an implementation of an organic view for a graph in some embodiments of the QPAV. An organic view may, e.g., detangle complex networks by spreading nodes and links apart, arranging multiple components in a circular shape with larger components (e.g., 830) in the center.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Eckardt would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick with the above generated organic visualization of graph for allowing a skill artisan in motivation as modified the limitation to perform the view of the graph having the spreading out nodes in graph structures expectation of visualization technique (Eckardt: Figs. 10-19: different shape of graph in arranging nodes, and pars. [0071-73]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 5. However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick do not explicitly teach: “… generate a lens visualization of the graph.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Eckardt teaches: “wherein the visualization control is operative to generate a lens visualization of the graph.” (see in par. [0148] “Selecting the radius around a node—One way to navigate the network is to choose the “radius” around a selected node. In this context, radius is the number of links between the selected node and another node. For example, if the radius is set to three, all of the documents that can be reached by less than three links from the selected document will be displayed in the network graph.”, wherein the “radius” of node(s) herein is interpreted as the lens visualization of the graph)
*** Examiner’s note: the claim limitation is defined in the Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0046] “FIGURE 8G shows an implementation of a lens view for a graph in some embodiments of the QPAV. A lens view may arrange nodes in a circular shape with highly connected nodes (e.g., 835) set in the center and less-connected nodes (e.g., 840) in the periphery to give a 'fish-eye lens' view.”
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Eckardt would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, Tsuchida, and Eick with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan to motivate in using the generated radius of Eckardt to modify the lens visualization to perform the graph structure for expectation of visualization technique (Eckardt: par. [0148]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida, and further in view of Samborskyy et al., US Pub. No. 2014/0181676 (hereinafter as “Samborskyy”).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach: “wherein the graph is provided for display in association with a time bar.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), teaches: “wherein the graph is provided for display in association with a time bar.” (see Fig. 14, element 322 for displaying the time slider/bar, and pars. [0144] “UI page 320 displays the parameters associated with the hours block that are available for configuration. According to one embodiment, the hours block represents an hours of operation function, which performs different operations according to a time and date of the interaction…”, and [0145] “input field 322 includes sliders which allow the contact center worker to select a time frame of the normal hours of operation…”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Samborskyy would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation as modified the teachings to perform the call times in the adjusted slider bar of time in certain interval or frame/period of time to improve the visual graph structure (Samborskyy: Figs. 14-16, and pars. [0144-145]).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1 and claim 15. However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach: “the time bar displays times associated with the plurality of call records.”
In the same field of endeavor, Samborskyy further teaches: “wherein the time bar displays times associated with the plurality of call records.” (par. [0174], e.g., “a heat flow (e.g., of call volume), average/maximum call time, average/maximum wait time, …, and the like.”)
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1 and claims 15-16. However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach: “an interactive slider that selects a range of times with which to restrict the plurality of call records.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Samborskyy further teaches: “wherein the time bar includes an interactive slider that selects a range of times with which to restrict the plurality of call records.” (again in Fig. 14, element 322 as explained above to claim 15, wherein the change/adjusting the indicator between the time interval is illustrated as the range of times with which limit/restrict/filter the call records in the particular time interval/period as known by a skill artisan, see further in par. [0145] “input field 322 includes sliders which allow … to select a time frame”, and me par. [0186] “displaying the ratio of calls answered versus the number of calls received within a particular time,…”, and par. [0256] “the monitored condition is average waiting time, a user may move the slider to increase or decrease the average waiting time threshold. ”)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida, and further in view of Dwyer et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0195406 (hereinafter as “Dwyer”).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claim 1. Furthermore, Roy, and Shoaf teach the call transcript (Roy: see pars. [0003, 8, 66]; and Shoaf: pars. [0014] and [0034, and 39-40]), and Brill teaches the visualization query graph based on the links attribute(s) and information (Figs. 3-4). However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach the limitation: “provide call transcription information associated with a given link upon selection of that link via the user interface.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Dwyer technically teaches: “wherein the graph is configured to provide call transcription information associated with a given link upon selection of that link via the user interface.” (in par. [0082] “… Audio conversations are ingested by the system along with call metadata and speech-to-text transcription is performed to generate a transcript that is analyzed using a set of linguistic and acoustic rules to look for certain key words, phrases, topics, and acoustic characteristics…”; and pars. [0122] “… An interface, such as the interface shown in FIG. 26, may reveal the search parameter (e.g. the selected time frame), may show transcripts of communications from that time frame, data on the scores per category for communications or communication sets, and the like.”, and [0145] discloses the call transcription information associates with the a link to a screen to a location in the call recording)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Dwyer would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida with the above indicated limitation for allowing a skill artisan in motivation to facilitate the call transcription information associated with the link to screen selecting by user/caller/callee via graphical user interface (Dwyer: pars. [0082, 122, and 145]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy, Shoaf, Brill and Tsuchida, and further in view of Casal et al., US Pub. No. 2022/0070292 (hereinafter as “Casal”) and Eick et al., US Patent No. 5,596,703 (hereinafter as “Eick”).
Regarding claim 25, the claim is rejected by the same reasons set forth above to claims 1 and 22-23. Furthermore, Brill teaches geographical location of the user(s) (see par. [0046]), and groups of links associated nodes (see Fig. 4; and par. [0031] “The edges 410 can be varied in thickness, represented by a string of geometric shapes to form a line, colored, and/or dashed and the like to indicate various strengths of the associations. The nodes 408 can also be grouped/clustered to indicate groupings that are more related/similar than other query-related nodes…”, which teaches “proximity” of nodes and links/edges in the graph, and further in technique of proximity in par. [0046], wherein the “user” is associated/interpreted as the caller/callee, and in geographical location/area)
However, Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida do not explicitly teach the newly added limitations: “wherein the associated metadata comprises call location” and “wherein the grouping of links and associated nodes is presented as a proximity of links and nodes associated with the call location in the displayed graph.”
In the same field of endeavor (i.e., data processing), Casal and Eick, in combination, teach: “wherein the associated metadata comprises call location” (Casal: Fig. 7 at elements 721-722; and pars. [0024-26] teach “metadata” associated the account, which including the user/caller “country, region, city, et.” as interpreted call location), and “wherein the grouping of links and associated nodes is presented as a proximity of links and nodes associated with the call location in the displayed graph.” (Casal: pars. [0024-26] teach the users’/callers’ account, which including the user/caller “country, region, city, et.” associated with the call(s) as interpreted call location; and further Eick: Fig. 1 is shown the graph data, display code, and display program; and Fig. 3 is shown the visualization of graph at element 303 between groups of nodes and links/edges; see Col. 2, lines 33-49; and Col. 13, lines 15-22: “The first technique quickly moves nodes into an approximation of the proper arrangement by swapping nodes if the swap results in bringing nodes with significant relationships closer together; the second technique refines the approximation by moving all of the nodes a small distance in a direction which brings their significant relationships closer together.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of the cited references because the teachings of Casal and Eick would have provided Roy, Shoaf, Brill, and Tsuchida with the above indicated limitations for allowing a skill artisan in motivation for grouping of links/edges and nodes of graph in significant proximity in the similarity, strength, and/or distance of relationship of nodes in the graph.
Response to Arguments
Referring to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant's arguments with respect to independent claim 1 (similar to independent claims 20-21) with the respective to amended limitations (see Remarks, pages 9-12) over the cited portions/teachings of Shoaf have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant's amendment to the claims. Applicant's newly amended features are taught implicitly, expressly, or impliedly by the prior art of record.
Prior Arts
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275,277 (CCPA 1968)); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
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 Jessica N. Le whose telephone number is (571)270-1009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 5:30 pm (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, 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 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.
/Jessica N Le/Examiner, Art Unit 2169
/SHERIEF BADAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2169