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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. This in response to an RCE amendment filed 06/03/2026. No claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1, 9 and 16 have been amended. Claim 1-20 are still pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Palawat et al. (Pub.No.: 2015/0085872 A1) in view of Mengshoel et al. (Pub.No. 2003/0059029 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, Palawat teaches a method, system and a router for dynamically selecting one or more agent-matching modules (reads on process a communication request to one an agent device, see [0010 and 0030]), comprising:
accessing a request for an agent communication, wherein the request comprises an initial communication comprising a router and a customer communication device utilized by a customer via a network (reads on receiving a communication request, see [0010 and 0030]);
accessing a set of agent-matching modules, each agent-matching module of the set of agent-matching modules comprising a logic that differs from the logic of each other agent-matching module of the set of agent-matching modules (see [0030]);
dynamically selecting a subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the system attribute (reads on the matching agent device 138 may be selected based on the skills attributed to the matching agent device, see [0030]);
receiving, from the subset of the set of agent-matching modules, a selected agent of the plurality of agents (see [0030]); and
establishing the agent communication between the customer communication device and a selected agent communication device corresponding to the selected agent (reads on agent device 138 establishing a link 340 with the communication device 110, see [0031]).
Palawat features already addressed in the rejection of claims 1, 9 and 16. Palawat does not specifically teach “accessing a system attribute of a system comprising a plurality of agents, each having a corresponding agent communication device operable to conduct the agent communication and
wherein the system attribute comprises system utilization”.
However, Mengshoel teaches determining and utilizing agent/system utilization information through occupancy metrics, including comparing target occupancy and actual occupancy, identifying agents having the greatest relative under-utilization or least over-utilization, and routing communications based upon such utilization information (see [0029], [0032], [0089-0090], [0095] and [0098]). An agent occupancy and under-utilization/over-utilization represent system utilization attributes associated with a plurality of agents. Mengshoel further teaches selecting and routing communications based on those utilizations’ attributes (see [0032], [0089], [0092] and [0098])
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the utilization metrics taught by Mengshoel into the agent-selection process of Palawat in order to select agents using a current resource utilization information, thereby improving workload balancing, routing efficiency, and overall contact-center resource utilization.
The claimed “network interface” as recited in in claim 9 reads on network interface 206 (see Palawat [0023]), the claimed “data storage” as recited in in claim 9 reads on memory 208 (see Palawat [0024]), the claimed “processor” as recited in in claim 9 reads on processor 204 (see Palawat [0022]) and the claimed “router” as recited in in claim 9 reads on router as discussed in [0015] of Palawat.
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 18, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches wherein the system attribute comprises an occupancy level (see Palawat [0044]), a utilization rate, or a number of pending communication requests one or more agent-matching modules of the set of agent-matching modules”.
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 19, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches wherein:
dynamically selecting the subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the system attribute further comprises selecting a first agent-matching module of the set of agent-matching modules and selecting a second agent-matching module of the set of agent-matching modules (modules reads on selecting another matching agent device for routing, see Palawat [0034]);
receiving, from the subset of the set of agent-matching modules, the selected agent of the plurality of agents further comprises receiving from the first agent-matching module a first subset of agents (see Palawat [0034]); and
the method further comprises providing the first subset of agents to the second agent- matching module and receiving therefrom the selected agent of the plurality of agents (see Palawat [0034]).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 20, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches wherein dynamically selecting the subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the system attribute further comprises selecting a first agent-matching module of the set of agent- matching modules and selecting a second agent-matching module of the set of agent-matching modules (reads on selecting another matching agent device for routing, see Palawat [0034]); and
receiving, from the subset of the set of agent-matching modules, the selected agent of the plurality of agents further comprises receiving from the first agent-matching module a first subset of agents and receiving from the second agent-matching module a second subset of agents, wherein the selected agent is a member of both the first subset of agents and the second subset of agents (see Palawat [0034]).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches wherein dynamically selecting the subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the system attribute further comprises selecting an identifier corresponding to the subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the system attribute (see Palawat [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches further comprising:
accessing an attribute of the request (reads on agent skills may also indicate proficiency of the agent with the particular product or technology. The agent skills may also include languages spoken by the agent, customer service rating, seniority, efficiency rating and other skill related attributes that may be used to match the agent with a user requesting communication via the communication device 110, see Palawat [0019]); and
wherein dynamically selecting the subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the system attribute further comprises dynamically selecting the subset of the set of agent-matching modules in accordance with the attribute of the request (see Palawat [0019]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches wherein accessing the set of agent-matching modules comprises accessing indicia of the set of agent-matching modules (reads on agent skills may also indicate proficiency of the agent with the particular product or technology. The agent skills may also include languages spoken by the agent, customer service rating, seniority, efficiency rating and other skill related attributes that may be used to match the agent with a user requesting communication via the communication device 110, see Palawat [0019]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel teaches wherein the processor is co-embodied with the router (see Palawat [0015]).
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Palawat et al. (Pub.No.: 2015/0085872 A1) in view of Mengshoel et al. (Pub.No. 2003/0059029 A1) and further in view of Parker (Pub.No.: 2005/0129212 A1).
Palawat and Mengshoel features are already addressed in the above rejection. Neither Palawat nor Konig specifically teach “wherein the system attribute further comprises an average wait time” as recited in claims 2, 10 and 17.
However, Parker teaches that call-volume analysis is carried out by obtaining from the communication switch 110, call-statistics such as total number of calls routed to one or more centers, and types of such calls routed, and also by obtaining from one or more call centers, call-handling-statistics such as calls answered, calls abandoned, and average wait times (see [0027]).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of collecting and utilizing an average wait time statistic or factor, as taught by Parker, into the combination of Palawat and Mengshoel in order to provide accurate and efficient processing for incoming request and better predication to meet the call center planning and goal.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights