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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howland (US 2020/0328908) in view of Roche (US 10,521,946) in further view of Goel (US 2010/0316213).
Referring to Claim 1, Howland teaches a computer system configured to create a virtual reality (VR) commerce space in which an agent can simultaneously interact with multiple customers, the computer system comprising:
a VR server configured to create a VR commerce space for one or more business products or services (see Howland ¶¶0031,47);
a call center server in communication with the VR server and configured to communicate with (a) a plurality of customer devices, and (b) an agent device having a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit an agent to enter text into the agent device (see Howland ¶0075 and Fig. 16J, a teamspeak voice server which is connected to the 3D world run by the VR server according to ¶0054);
the call center server being further configured to position each customer having one of the plurality of customer devices into the VR commerce space and to permit the agent device to communicate with a first device of the plurality of customer devices in a first communication and a second device of the plurality of customer devices in a second communication, wherein the first communication and the second communication are separate communications (see Howland Fig. 13 and ¶0028, a first user employee can communicate with a second user customer, and the second user customer can then leave the conversation and a third user customer can join the conversation, thereby making the conversation between employee 1 & customer 2 and employee 1 & customer 3 separate communications).
Howland does not teach a text-to-speech (TTS) engine that converts text entered into the agent device into speech that is transmitted by the call center server to one or more of the plurality of customer devices. However, Roche teaches a text-to-speech (TTS) engine that converts text entered into an agent device into speech that is transmitted by a server to one or more of a plurality of devices (see Roche Col. 3 line 60 to Col. 4 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references to apply the teachings of Roche to those of Howland because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the call center and VR server of the invention would continue to allow for a space for one or more business products or services and allow agents to communicate with customer devices according to the teachings of Howland, except that now it would further include a TTS engine for converting text entered by the agent device into speech that is transmitted by the call center server to one or more of the plurality of customer devices according to the principles taught by Roche.
In this embodiment, Howland and Roche does not teach wherein these separate communications are also “simultaneous” (e.g., one agent can simultaneously communicate with multiple separate users but do so separately). However, Goel teaches wherein one agent can communicate simultaneously with multiple customers in separate communications (see Geol ¶¶0040,42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Howland and Roche would continue to allow various customers to communicate separately with the agent except that now those communications could also be simultaneous according to the teachings of Geol.
Referring to Claim 2, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the TTS engine is configured to convert SMS messages, email messages, and/or chat messages from the agent device to speech on the first device and the second device (see Roche Col. 3 line 60 to Col. 4 line 15).
Referring to Claim 3, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 1 that further comprises an avatar library in communication with the VR server, wherein the avatar library comprises a plurality of avatars (see Howland ¶¶0026,32).
Referring to Claim 4, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 3, wherein the conference call center server is configured to receive a command from a customer of any of the plurality of customer devices to select a unique avatar from the avatar library and transmit the command to the VR server, which selects the unique avatar from the avatar library and places the unique avatar into the VR commerce space to represent the customer (see Howland ¶0026).
Referring to Claim 5, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 1, wherein the call center server is configured to generate typical speech-related nuances that are included in the speech generated by the TTS engine (see Roche Col. 3 line 60 to Col. 4 line 15).
Referring to Claim 6, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 1, that further includes the plurality of customer devices and wherein each of the plurality of customer devices includes an electronic display configured to display the VR commerce space in three dimensions (3D) (see Howland Fig. 6-11 and ¶0099).
Referring to Claim 7, the combination teaches a computer-implemented method for creating a VR commerce space in which a plurality of customer devices can simultaneously interact with an agent device, the method comprising the steps of:
utilizing a VR server to create the VR commerce space (see Howland ¶¶0031,47);
utilizing a call center server in communication with the VR server to communicate with the plurality of customer devices, and with an agent device (see Howland ¶0075 and Fig. 16J, a teamspeak voice server which is connected to the 3D world run by the VR server according to ¶0054), in order to permit a first device of the plurality of customer devices and a second device of the plurality of customer devices to communicate with the agent device in a first communication and a second communication respectively, and to also communicate with the VR server, wherein the first communication and the second communication are separate communications (see Howland Fig. 13 and ¶0028, a first user employee can communicate with a second user customer, and the second user customer can then leave the conversation and a third user customer can join the conversation, thereby making the conversation between employee 1 & customer 2 and employee 1 & customer 3 separate communications);
utilizing an avatar library, permitting each of the plurality of customer devices to select a unique avatar from the avatar library and placing the unique avatar in the VR commerce space to represent the customer associated with a particular customer device (see Howland ¶¶0026,32);
Howland does not teach utilizing a text-to-voice translator, permitting the agent to communicate via the agent device with text or symbols entered into a UPI of the agent device, wherein the text-to-voice translator translates the symbols or text into voice on the first device of the plurality of customer devices and the second device of the plurality of customer devices in communication with the agent device. However, Roche teaches a text-to-voice translator, permitting communication via a device with text or symbols entered into a UPI of the device, wherein the text-to-voice translator translates the symbols or text into voice on the first device of the plurality of customer devices and the second device of the plurality of devices in communication with the device (see Roche Col. 3 line 60 to Col. 4 line 15 and Col. 7 lines 29-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references to apply the teachings of Roche to those of Howland because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the call center and VR server of the invention would continue to allow for a commerce space and a call center according to the teachings of Howland, except that now it would further include a text-to-voice translator permitting the agent to communicate via the agent device according to the principles taught by Roche.
In this embodiment, Howland and Roche does not teach wherein these separate communications are also “simultaneous” (e.g., one agent can simultaneously communicate with multiple separate users but do so separately). However, Goel teaches wherein one agent can communicate simultaneously with multiple customers in separate communications (see Geol ¶¶0040,42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Howland and Roche would continue to allow various customers to communicate separately with the agent except that now those communications could also be simultaneous according to the teachings of Geol.
Referring to Claim 8, the combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further utilizing the call center server to communicate with the plurality of customer devices, and with the agent device, in order to permit a third device of the plurality of customer devices to communicate with the agent device in a third communication while the agent device is communicating with the first device and the second device, wherein the first communication, the second communication, and the third communication are separate communications (see Howland Fig. 13 and ¶0028).
Referring to Claim 9, the combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the agent has the option to utilize voice communications sent from the agent device to any of the plurality of customer devices (see Howland ¶¶0028,44).
Referring to Claim 10, the combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein if the call center server detects a pause or interruption in a communication from the agent device to one of the plurality of customer devices it fills the pause or interruption with a voice filler. The examiner notes that this is a method claim and contains a conditional limitation. As such, this limitation is given little to no patentable weight since the condition is not recited to occur.
Referring to Claim 11, the combination teaches the computer-implemented of method of claim 7, wherein the call center server is further configured to answer some questions posed by a customer without input from the agent (see Howland Fig. 16I, the position in the queue).
Referring to Claim 12, the combination teaches the computer-implemented of method of claim 7, wherein the VR server is in communication with an avatar library and is configured to select an avatar for each of the customers and for the agent and place the avatars in the VR commerce space (see Howland ¶¶0024,59).
Referring to Claim 13, the combination teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein speech by a customer is converted by the call center server to text on the agent device utilizing an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine (see Roche Col. 21 lines 32-56).
Referring to Claim 15, the combination teaches a computer system configured to create a virtual reality (VR) commerce space in which an agent can simultaneously conduct multiple customer interactions, the computer system comprising:
a VR server configured to create a VR commerce space for one or more business products or services (see Howland ¶¶0031,47);
a call center server in communication with the VR server and configured to communicate with (a) a plurality of customer devices, and (b) an agent device having a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to permit an agent to enter text into the agent device (see Howland ¶0075 and Fig. 16J, a teamspeak voice server which is connected to the 3D world run by the VR server according to ¶0054), wherein the agent device communicates with each of the plurality of customer devices in separate communications for each of the plurality of customer devices (see Howland Fig. 13 and ¶0028, a first user employee can communicate with a second user customer, and the second user customer can then leave the conversation and a third user customer can join the conversation, thereby making the conversation between employee 1 & customer 2 and employee 1 & customer 3 separate communications);
an avatar library in communication with the VR server (see Howland ¶¶0026,32);
via the agent device or one of the plurality of customer devices, a unique avatar for the agent and for the customer can be selected and placed in the VR commerce space (see Howland ¶0026).
Howland does not teach a text-to-speech (TTS) engine that converts text entered into the agent device into speech that is transmitted by the call center server to one or more of the plurality of customer devices. However, Roche teaches a text-to-speech (TTS) engine that converts text entered into an agent device into speech that is transmitted by a server to one or more of a plurality of devices (see Roche Col. 3 line 60 to Col. 4 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references to apply the teachings of Roche to those of Howland because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the call center and VR server of the invention would continue to allow for a space for one or more business products or services and allow agents to communicate with customer devices according to the teachings of Howland, except that now it would further include a TTS engine for converting text entered by the agent device into speech that is transmitted by the call center server to one or more of the plurality of customer devices according to the principles taught by Roche.
In this embodiment, Howland and Roche does not teach wherein these separate communications are also “simultaneous” (e.g., one agent can simultaneously communicate with multiple separate users but do so separately). However, Goel teaches wherein one agent can communicate simultaneously with multiple customers in separate communications (see Geol ¶¶0040,42-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine these references because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Howland and Roche would continue to allow various customers to communicate separately with the agent except that now those communications could also be simultaneous according to the teachings of Geol.
Referring to Claim 16, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 15, wherein the call center server is configured to permit (a) a plurality of customer devices to simultaneously view one VR commerce space (see Holland ¶¶0028,52 and Fig. 10), and/or (b) a plurality of agent devices to simultaneously view one VR commerce space, such that a plurality of customers and/or a plurality of agents can simultaneously interact within the VR commerce space (see Holland ¶¶0093-95,52 and Fig. 10).
Referring to Claim 17, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 15, wherein at least one of the plurality of customer devices is configured to communicate with the call center server by voice (see Holland ¶¶0028,88).
Referring to Claim 18, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 15, wherein one or more of the plurality of customer devices is configured to communicate to the agent device by TTS (see Roche Col. 3 line 60 to Col. 4 line 15).
Referring to Claim 20, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 15, wherein the customer device communicates via the unique avatar for the customer and the agent communicates via the unique avatar for the agent (see Holland ¶¶0026,28).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howland (US 2020/0328908) in view of Roche (US 10,521,946) in further view of Goel (US 2010/0316213) in further view of Cappetta (US 2020/0387550).
Referring to Claim 14, the combination teaches the computer implemented method of claim 7 but does not teach wherein the VR server further generates bots in the VR commerce space that are configured to communicate with one or more of the plurality of customer devices, wherein one or both of the VR server and the call center server are configured to control the bots' communications. However, Cappetta teaches a server generates bots that are configured to communicate with one or more of a plurality of devices and the server can override (control) the bots if desired (see Cappetta ¶0132 and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to apply the concepts of bots and controlling them as taught by Cappetta to the combination of Howland and Roche and Goel because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination would continue to teach a VR space that communicates with customer devices, except that now the VR space would include bots which could be controlled by the server. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howland (US 2020/0328908) in view of Roche (US 10,521,946) in further view of Goel (US 2010/0316213) and in further view of Kibby (CA 2544804).
Referring to Claim 19, the combination teaches the computer system of claim 15, but does not teach wherein the call center server is further configured to pause the conversation if it detects that the agent needs additional time to answer a question. However, Kibby teaches allowing one party to pause a voice conversation if more time is needed to respond (see Kibby ¶0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to apply the concepts of conversation pausing if more time is needed to answer a message as taught by Kibby to the environment of the combination of Howland and Roche and Goel because the results would be predictable. Specifically, the combination of Howland and Roche and Goel would continue to teach a VR environment where an agent and customer can converse except that now the agent could pause the conversation if more time is needed to answer the user’s question, according to the principles taught by Kibby. This is a predictable result of the combination.
Remarks
In regards to the applicant’s arguments, they are directed to newly amended limitations which have been fully addressed above by the newly introduce prior art.
The examiner also notes that the following constitutes additional prior art relevant to the application but not relied upon:
Reference U (see PTO-892) teaches using 3D avatars to animate customer service representatives.
Odinak (US 9,942,401) teaches an automated call center.
Post (US 11,200,742) teaches augmented reality customer support.
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 MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights