DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are pending in the instant patent application.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and newly cited art.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite abstract ideas (Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as amended still recite abstract ideas. Examiner will remind Applicant that the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
In examining the amended language, Examiner has concluded that the amended language further recites the abstract ideas. The amended language merely defines what the standardized type of channel can be and defining a rules template. Neither steering the claims away from the abstract ideas.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the claims are similar to the ruling in Carmody, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by the Applicant, the claims recited improvement in a computing system, the same however, cannot be made about the claims as currently written.
In addition, Examiner states that while the Applicant has asserted alleged improvements, the claims as currently written do no recite the alleged improvements. Examiner will further note an important consideration to evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. MPEP 2106.04(a) and 2106.05(a) provide a detailed explanation of how to perform this analysis. In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. In analyzing the specification, Examiner maintains that the specification sets forth an improvement, but in a conclusory manner and furthermore the claims do not reflect the disclosed improvement or effectively demonstrate an improvement to existing technology. In addition, (ref: 2106.04(d)(1)). As noted in Ex Parte Desjardins, the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. There were clear improvements noted and further reflected in the claim language. The same cannot be said of the current claims in light of Ex Parte Desjardins. Thus for in at least these reasons, Examiner maintains that the claim language recites abstract ideas.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-6, they are directed to a method, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-6 are directed to the abstract idea of processing multiple communications in a call center.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites creating a ticket data structure that is configured to record a circulation of predefined tasks to be accomplished by one or more call center agents on behalf of a customer, wherein the ticket data structure includes a customer level information field, a product information field, and a priority information field relating to the predefined tasks; receiving omnichannel communications data relating to multiple of the omnichannel communications related to the predefined tasks, wherein the communications are accomplished over more than one type of communication channel; classifying each of the omnichannel communications into at least one standardized type of communication channel, wherein the at least one standardized channel includes a synchronous channel and an asynchronous channel; selecting a rules template corresponding to each of the standardized types and characteristics of the omnichannel communication, wherein the rules template specifies a first set of metrics for synchronous channels and a second set of metrics for asynchronous channels; applying at least one rule specified by each template to the corresponding types of omnichannel communications based on the classification step; updating the ticket based on the results of the applying; extracting customer information from the customer level data field, the product information field, and the priority information field; applying a preconfigured service level template to each flow link of the ticket, wherein each service level template specifies a time limit and a communication channel; monitoring the of the omnichannel communications and generating an SLA metrics for the ticket based on a corresponding reminder method, reminder frequency, and time limit value for each flow link of the ticket; determining a time duration for accomplishing each of the predefined tasks in accordance with the time limit values; and setting a reminder method and a reminder frequency for each communication chain of the ticket according to the time limit value specified by the corresponding service level template.
These claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas because they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment). Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-6 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the element of a omnichannel computer network. The omnichannel computer network is merely a generic computing device and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include an omnichannel computer network and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0001-0002. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 1 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Therefore, Claim 1 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 7-12, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 7-12 are directed to the abstract idea of processing multiple communications in a call center.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 7, claim 7 recites creating a ticket data structure that is configured to record a circulation of predefined tasks to be accomplished by one or more call center agents on behalf of a customer, wherein the ticket data structure includes a customer level information field, a product information field, and a priority information field relating to the predefined tasks; receiving omnichannel communications data relating to multiple of the omnichannel communications related to the predefined tasks, wherein the communications are accomplished over more than one type of communication channel; classifying each of the omnichannel communications into at least one standardized type of communication channel, wherein the at least one standardized channel includes a synchronous channel and an asynchronous channel; selecting a rules template corresponding to each of the standardized types and characteristics of the omnichannel communication, wherein the rules template specifies a first set of metrics for synchronous channels and a second set of metrics for asynchronous channels; applying at least one rule specified by each template to the corresponding types of omnichannel communications based on the classification step; updating the ticket based on the results of the applying; extracting customer information from the customer level data field, the product information field, and the priority information field; applying a preconfigured service level template to each flow link of the ticket, wherein each service level template specifies a time limit and a communication channel; monitoring the of the omnichannel communications and generating an SLA metrics for the ticket based on a corresponding reminder method, reminder frequency, and time limit value for each flow link of the ticket; determining a time duration for accomplishing each of the predefined tasks in accordance with the time limit values; and setting a reminder method and a reminder frequency for each communication chain of the ticket according to the time limit value specified by the corresponding service level template.
These claim limitations fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas due to the managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). In addition, the claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas because they are concepts that can be performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment). Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 8-12 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a computer processor, omnichannel computer network and a memory device. The computer processor, omnichannel computer network and memory device are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 7 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a computer processor, omnichannel computer network, a memory device and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0001-0002. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions. In addition, Claim 7 recites computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(ii)...at least, Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Therefore, Claim 7 is not drawn to eligible subject matter as it is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §103 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of newly amended language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107169744 B) in view of Angeli et al. (US 11,184,306 B1) further in view of Magnuson (US 2012/0101866 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which states
creating a ticket data structure that is configured to record a circulation of predefined tasks to be accomplished by one or more call center agents on behalf of a customer, wherein the ticket data structure includes a customer level information field, a product information field, and a priority information field relating to the predefined tasks (Zhang: Para 0011-0012, 0017, 0067 via Step 2, generating a service level agreement template according to the electronic work order... and 3, monitoring the use time of each circulation link of the electronic work order in the circulation process according to the service level agreement template...Step 2.1, extracting customer information, product information and priority information from the electronic work order...S202, parsing the electronic work order through a background program, extracting customer information, product information, priority information, business information, and link information from corresponding positions in the electronic work order).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1 which state receiving omnichannel computer network communications data relating to multiple of the omnichannel computer network communications related to the predefined tasks, wherein the communications are accomplished over more than one type of communication channel; classifying each of the omnichannel computer network communications into at least one standardized type of communication channel.
Angeli though, with the teachings of Zhang, teaches of
receiving omnichannel computer network communications data relating to multiple of the omnichannel computer network communications related to the predefined tasks, wherein the communications are accomplished over more than one type of communication channel (Angeli: Col 25 lines 25-50, Col 26 lines 22-34 via At operation 304, the communication management component 116 can receive a second communication associated with the merchant identifier, wherein the merchant is the intended recipient of the second communication. In at least one example, the communication management component 116 can receive a second communication. In some examples, the second communication can be associated with the same user as the first communication. That is, in some examples, the second communication can be received from the first customer computing device 112 and/or another computing device of the customer 108 and, thus can be associated with a same token, or other identifier, as the first communication. In some examples, the second communication can be associated with a different user than the first communication. In such examples, the second communication can be received from a second customer computing device, such as the customer computing device 114 and/or another computing device of the customer 110. In such examples, the second communication can be associated with a different token, or other identifier, than the first communication. In some examples, the second communication can be received via a same communication channel as the first communication or a different communication channel as the first communication. For example, both the first communication and the second communication can be received as text communications...In some examples, the communication management component 116 can utilize the permission(s) 126 and/or rule(s) 128, described above, to selectively present the first communication and/or the second communication. In some examples, the first communication and/or the second communication can additionally or alternatively be sent as a direct communication, text communication, email, or the like to the appropriate recipient (e.g., as determined by the permission(s) 126 and/or rule(s) 128). In some examples, two different workers associated with a same merchant may see different consolidated communication user interfaces based on their respective permission(s) 126 and/or rule(s) 128);
classifying each of the omnichannel computer network communications into at least one standardized type of communication channel, wherein the at least one standardized type of channel includes a synchronous channel and an asynchronous channel (Angeli: Col 14 line 61 - Col 15 line 18 via In at least one example, the context determination component 118 can utilize a machine-trained model (e.g., a classifier, a neural network, etc.) to determine which communication channel(s) and/or platform(s) to route communications. In some examples, such a model can be trained based at least in part on previous communications associated with users of the service provider. Such communications can be associated with metadata indicating content of such communications, date and/or time of such communications, communication channels and/or platforms associated with such communications, users associated with such communications, and/or the like. Such data can be used to train a model, for example using machine learning mechanisms. The resulting machine-trained model can be a statistical classifier, a neural network, or the like. The machine-trained model can output one or more classes, wherein each class represents a different communication channel or platform. In some examples, such classes can be representative of different identifiers of an individual user, wherein each identifier corresponds to a different communication channel (e.g., email address/email, phone number/text message, identifier/social media platform, etc.). Classes can be ranked or otherwise arranged such to identify the recommended communication channel and/or platform for routing a communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with the teachings of Angeli in order to have receiving omnichannel computer network communications data relating to multiple of the omnichannel computer network communications related to the predefined tasks, wherein the communications are accomplished over more than one type of communication channel; classifying each of the omnichannel computer network communications into at least one standardized type of communication channel, wherein the at least one standardized type of channel includes a synchronous channel and an asynchronous channel. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of contextual routing and/or management/classification of communications as taught by Angeli. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Zhang does not teach the limitations of Claim 1 which state selecting a rules template corresponding to each of the standardized types and characteristics of the omnichannel computer network communication, wherein the rules template specifies a first set of metrics for synchronous channels and a second, different set of metrics for asynchronous channels; applying at least one rule specified by each template to the corresponding types of omnichannel computer network communications based on the classification step; updating the ticket based on the results of the applying.
Magnuson though, with the teachings of Zhang/Angeli, teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
selecting a rules template corresponding to each of the standardized types and characteristics of the omnichannel computer network communication, wherein the rules template specifies a first set of metrics for synchronous channels and a second, different set of metrics for asynchronous channels (Magnuson: Para 0011, 0038 via managing support services includes storing one or more support level agreements (SLAs), each having an associated attribute, in a database as one or more corresponding data objects. One or more trouble tickets, each having one or more associated attributes, are entered into the database as one or more corresponding data objects. One or more of the one or more stored SLAs are automatically applied to each of the one or more trouble tickets by matching the attributes of the one or more trouble tickets with the attributes of the one or more SLAs…The data model may also include data objects for defining SLA rules. These SLA rule data objects may accord with an SLA Rule Template. FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example of an SLA Rule Template according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The SLA Rule template 20 may include an "id" and "name" attributes that have been described above in relation to the SLA Template. The SLA Rule template 20 may also include a "condition" attribute. The condition may indicate what conditions are necessary to implement the given rule on a given ticket. For example, the condition may be an object, set of objects or executable code that may result in a true or false outcome. The SLA Rule Template 20 may include an "owning_sla_template" attribute. The "owning_sla_template" may be of an SLA_Template data type. The SLA data type may be a data type for storing the name of an SLA_Template. The "owning_sla_template" attribute may be used to reference the SLA Template corresponding to the SLA from which the particular rule is based. The SLA Rule template 20 may include a "fire_time" attribute of a "duration" data type. The duration data type may be a data type for storing a length of time. The "fire_time" attribute may be used to indicate the length of time to wait before evaluating the condition and executing any "actions" that may result from satisfaction of the condition) This teaches that different SLAs (templates) may track different SLA-related metrics such as average response time and violation costs, and SLAs are selected per ticket based on attributes; aligning with the fact that different categories (per channel type) have different metrics;
applying at least one rule specified by each template to the corresponding types of omnichannel computer network communications based on the classification step (Magnuson: Para 0041, 0054 via As indicated above, the fire_time attribute of the SLA_Rule Template defines the delay between when the SLA_Template and the SLA_Rule Template are applied to the ticket and when the SLA_Rule is actually evaluated. This allows for the rule to initiate at some later point to assess if the SLA Rule, and hence the SLA, has been violated. For example, where the SLA Rule specifies that trouble tickets relating to printers may not remain open for longer than 4 days, the fire_time delay may be 4 days at which point the condition of whether the ticket has been closed may be evaluated. Where the condition is not met, an action may be performed and/or the SLA Rule flagged…The support organization administrator, for example a call center administrator, may map ticket reference objects to the SLA objects (Step S104). This may be accomplished by generating attribute map objects, for example according to the Attribute_Map template described above. Each ticket reference object may be associated with its own SLA. The data model may generate the attribute map objects based on the supported organization. For example, the rules for "high priority" tickets for certain categories may be different than the rules for "high priority" tickets for others);
updating the ticket based on the results of the applying (Magnuson: Para 0061 via The attributes of a ticket may be updated. Updating the attributes of a ticket may then lead to adding and/or removing SLA objects from the ticket. FIG. 12 is a flow chart illustrating a method for modifying an SLA when ticket attributes have been updated according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. The ticket's affected organization and service contract may be determined (Step S121). Where no service contract is found a default case may be used. Applicable SLA objects may be collected (Step S122). The applicable SLA objects are those SLA objects that are applicable in light of the updated attributes (the NewSet). The existing SLA objects attached to the ticket via the Attached_SLA objects may be collected (Step S123). These SLA objects are those SLA objects that were applicable to the ticket prior to modification (the OldSet). The OldSet of SLA objects may be compared to the NewSet of SLA objects and the sets may be "pruned" (Group of Steps 124). Pruning the sets may include eliminating any duplicates (Step S125) and where an SLA object is found in the OldSet but not the NewSet, the existing Attached_SLA object and any outstanding rules/events the SLA object applied to the ticket may be deleted (Step S126). An Attached_SLA object may be created for each SLA object remaining in the NewSet (Step S127). Rules/events defined in the final set of Attached_SLA objects may then be enforced). As SLA rules are applied, statuses are updated based on the results of the rules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang/Angeli with the teachings of Magnuson in order to have selecting a rules template corresponding to each of the standardized types and characteristics of the omnichannel computer network communication, wherein the rules template specifies a first set of metrics for synchronous channels and a second, different set of metrics for asynchronous channels; applying at least one rule specified by each template to the corresponding types of omnichannel computer network communications based on the classification step; updating the ticket based on the results of the applying. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of service level agreement design and enforcement for a call center as taught by Magnuson. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combination of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson further teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
extracting customer information from the customer level data field, the product information field, and the priority information field (Zhang: Para 0017 via Step 2.1, extracting customer information, product information and priority information from the electronic work order);
applying a preconfigured service level template to each flow link of the ticket, wherein each service level template specifies a time limit and a communication channel (Zhang: Para 0068 via S203, analyzing the customer information to obtain the customer's value level and service level recorded in the electronic work order, analyzing the product information to obtain the product category recorded in the electronic work order, analyzing the priority information to obtain the priority of processing the electronic work order, that is, the urgency, analyzing the business information to obtain the guarantee level of the business recorded in the electronic work order, and analyzing the link information to obtain the time limit of the link that needs to be circulated for the electronic work order);
monitoring the of the omnichannel computer network communications and generating an SLA metrics for the ticket based on a corresponding reminder method, reminder frequency, and time limit value for each flow link of the ticket (Zhang: Para 0012, 0064, 0077-0078 via monitoring the use time of each circulation link of the electronic work order in the circulation process according to the service level agreement template…According to the time limit monitoring method of the electronic work order, the service level agreement template is generated, the time of each circulation link of the electronic work order in the circulation process is monitored, the circulation speed of the electronic work order can be increased, the management and control of the electronic work order are more efficient and timely, and the satisfaction degree of users is further improved. …s205, generating an SLA template according to the time limit value, the reminding mode and the reminding frequency, wherein the SLA template (Service-Level Agreement) is a Service Level Agreement template, the SLA is a contract between a network Service provider and a client, and terms such as Service type, Service quality, client payment and the like are defined in the SLA template);
determining a time duration for accomplishing each of the predefined tasks in accordance with the time limit values (Zhang: Para 0019 via step 2.3, calculating according to the customer grade, the product category and the emergency degree to obtain a time limit value of each circulation link of the electronic worksheet in the circulation process); and
setting a reminder method and a reminder frequency for each communication chain of the ticket according to the time limit value specified by the corresponding service level template (Zhang: Para 0020-0021, 0078 via Step 2.4, setting the reminder method and reminder frequency of each of the circulation links according to the time limit value. Step 2.5: Generate the service level agreement template according to the time limit value, the reminder method and the reminder frequency... s206, the electronic worksheet starts to circulate, the system monitors the electronic worksheet according to the time limit value, the reminding mode and the reminding frequency configured in the SLA template, when the electronic worksheet circulates to any circulation link, the arrival reminding of the electronic worksheet arriving at the circulation link is sent out).
Regarding Claim 7, it is analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons (Angeli: Col 45 lines 15-39).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107169744 B) in view of Angeli et al. (US 11,184,306 B1) in view of Magnuson (US 2012/0101866 A1) further in view of Patel et al. (US 2016/0309032 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, while the combination of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 2 which states wherein the communication channel is a voice channel and wherein the at least one rule is based on a customer wait time for the communication and agent work time.
Patel though, with the teachings of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson, teaches of
wherein the communication channel is a voice channel and wherein the at least one rule is based on a customer wait time for the communication and agent work time (Patel: Para 0030-0031 via In step 108, the caller profile may be matched with a predetermined personal rule. A personal rule may specify how to manage an incoming communication such as a phone call. A personal rule may be a function of a target evaluated against a caller profile. As one example a personal rule may specify that a dynamic response to be generated for any calls from a target, such as a specific person or a specific group of people. As another example, a personal rule may specify that a dynamic response be generated for a caller profile comprising a ranking exceeding a predetermined threshold. A personal rule may be a function of a condition evaluated against a caller profile. In one embodiment, a personal rule may specify that a dynamic response be generated after a condition is met. A condition may comprise, for example, a predetermined wait time in an ACD queue, or a predetermined number of calls into the system. In one example, an incoming communication may be routed to an ACD queue. A personal rule may specify that if a caller waits longer than five minutes in the ACD queue that a dynamic response be generated, such as an email with a discount code, or a conciliatory message played over the phone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson with the teachings of Patel, in order to have wherein the communication channel is a voice channel and wherein the at least one rule is based on a customer wait time for the communication and agent work time. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of enhancing call experiences through personal rules. Furthermore, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, while the combination of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 3 which states wherein the communication channel is an asynchronous communication channel including one of email, chat, and text communication channels and wherein the at least one rule is based on first response time, next response time, customer wait time, and agent work time.
Patel though, with the teachings of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson, teaches of
wherein the communication channel is an asynchronous communication channel including one of email, chat, and text communication channels and wherein the at least one rule is based on first response time, next response time, customer wait time, and agent work time (Patel: Para 0031 via A personal rule may be a function of a condition evaluated against a caller profile. In one embodiment, a personal rule may specify that a dynamic response be generated after a condition is met. A condition may comprise, for example, a predetermined wait time in an ACD queue, or a predetermined number of calls into the system. In one example, an incoming communication may be routed to an ACD queue. A personal rule may specify that if a caller waits longer than five minutes in the ACD queue that a dynamic response be generated, such as an email with a discount code, or a conciliatory message played over the phone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson with the teachings of Patel, in order to have wherein the communication channel is an asynchronous communication channel including one of email, chat, and text communication channels and wherein the at least one rule is based on first response time, next response time, customer wait time, and agent work time. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of enhancing call experiences through personal rules. Furthermore, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 8-9, they are analogous to Claims 2-3 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 107169744 B) in view of Angeli et al. (US 11,184,306 B1) in view of Magnuson (US 2012/0101866 A1) further in view of Segal et al. (US 2023/0325736 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, while the combination of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitation of Claim 4 which states wherein the rules template specifies metrics for a communication channel.
Segal though, with the teachings of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson, teaches of
wherein the rules template specifies metrics for a communication channel (Segal: Para 0059, 0091, 0111 via A machine learning model may be trained according to some embodiments of the invention by receiving as input at least one of: volumes over different skills and channels; average handling time (AHT); customer latency; and number of agents assigned and corresponding skill composition. These data may represent historical data over past periods or intervals, where the data for each interval is a training sample. For each past interval the model may receive for example the actual workload (volumes, AHT, customer latency) as well as groups or sets of agents, each associated with various skills. The output of the model may be the predicted or expected service metrics measured for this historical interval, such as service level, ASA, chat latency and /or general metrics for different channels. In an embodiment where the resource is another resource, for example a computer resource, the past interval training data may be loads or usage for computer resources...An embodiment of the invention may also relate to a method for optimizing workforce management plans in environments concurrently handling a plurality of voice and non-voice communications channels for a plurality of workforce skills, in a given time interval. The method may include receiving a forecasted workload and a required level of service. A level of service may, for example, include one or more service metrics, and as such a level of service may include a required service level within the meaning of service level agreement (SLA), i.e. a predetermined percentage of customers answered in a predetermined time period...FIG. 9 shows an example of a graphic user interface (GUI) 900 according to embodiments of the invention. Service Targets 902 may refer to a KPI designed to evaluate the experience of the contacting customers and the quality of service provided to them, in terms of work force and agent availability. Service level (SLA) 904, a common service metric, may allow the user to define the percentage of users answered within a selected time frame, e.g. 80% of customers answered within 20 minutes. Wait Time 906 (ASA) is a common service metric used for voice calls detailing how long customers waited until their call was picked up by an agent. Maximum Occupancy 908 may refer to a value meant to specify how far off the contact center should be from working at its full capacity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson with the teachings of Segal, in order to have wherein the rules template specifies metrics for a communication channel. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of calculating service metrics. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson/Segal, teaches the limitations of Claim 5 which states
wherein the service level template specifies values for the metrics (Segal: Para 0044 via “Service Metrics” may refer to key performance indicators (KPIs) designed to evaluate the experience of the contacting customers and the quality of service provided to them, in terms of work force and agent availability. These KPIs can include average speed of answer, service level and customer latency amongst others. When the contact center is understaffed, service metrics may be lower than defined, and when over staffed, higher. Each user may select the service metrics that are important for their contact center and may define values based on their preferences. These may be referred to as “Service Targets” or “Required Service Metrics” in the sense that they are a required target to be achieved by any allocation assignment).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zhang/Angeli/Magnuson/Segal, teaches the limitation of Claim 6 which states
wherein the value for the metric indicate or more values corresponding to Problem, Question, and/or Billing Issue (Segal: Para 0044 via “Service Metrics” may refer to key performance indicators (KPIs) designed to evaluate the experience of the contacting customers and the quality of service provided to them, in terms of work force and agent availability. These KPIs can include average speed of answer, service level and customer latency amongst others. When the contact center is understaffed, service metrics may be lower than defined, and when over staffed, higher. Each user may select the service metrics that are important for their contact center and may define values based on their preferences. These may be referred to as “Service Targets” or “Required Service Metrics” in the sense that they are a required target to be achieved by any allocation assignment).
Regarding Claims 10-12, they are analogous to Claims 4-6 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/T.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3625 /BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights