Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
1. This in response to amendment filed 11/26/2015. No claims have been added. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 16 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 Konig et al. (Pub.No. 2017/0316438 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 at least one of system utilization
or communication resolution success rate”.
However, Konig teaches determining an agent performance metrics including first-call resolution rate, and routing an interaction to the agent that minimizes the performance metrics (see [0118] and [0119]). First call resolution represents whether a communication is successfully resolved during the interaction and therefore corresponds to communication resolution success rate, which is a system attribute associated with agents.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the performance metric described by Konig, including first-call resolution rate, into the routing system of Palawat in order to select agents based on successful resolution performance and thereby improve contact-center efficiency and customer satisfaction.
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 Konig 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 Konig 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 Konig 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 Konig 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 Konig 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 Konig 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 Konig 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 Konig et al. (Pub.No. 2017/0316438 A1) and further in view of Parker (Pub.No.: 2005/0129212 A1).
Palawat and Konig 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 Konig in order to provide accurate and efficient processing for incoming request and better predication to meet the call center planning and goal.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
5. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
6. 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