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 .
The previous office action is replaced.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bueche et al. (US Patent No. 11,776,542).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-8, Bueche teaches a computer-implemented method to automatically modify a content item, comprising:
programmatically analyzing computer-mediated interaction between a user and a customer service agent to determine if the computer-mediated interaction is successful, wherein the computer-mediated interaction is with reference to the content item (abstract; fig.1,3; col.6, lines 37-51, col.11, lines 14-31);
identifying context [i.e., information] provided by the customer service agent during the computer-mediated interaction (fig.1,3; col.6, lines 37-51, col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31);
generating a score pool of questions/rank of question [i.e., content update] based on the identified information (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67 col.11, lines 14-31); and
modifying the score of questions/rank of question [i.e., content item] based on the content update (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31).
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 18, Bueche teaches wherein the programmatically analyzing is performed in response to determining that a rating associated with the content item is below a threshold (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31).
Regarding claim 4, Bueche teaches wherein the computer-mediated interaction includes one or more of: a call, a synchronous chat, or asynchronous interaction (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 20, Bueche teaches wherein the programmatically analyzing includes detecting a user sentiment during the computer-mediated interaction based on one or more of: text, speech, or video of the user (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Bueche teaches a computing device comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations (col.17, lines 49-67, col.21, lines 37-64).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Bueche teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (col.17, lines 49-67, col.21, lines 37-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 3, 6, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueche (US Patent No. 11,776,542) in view of Kumar et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0119384).
Regarding claims 3, 14 and 19, Bueche does not specifically teach wherein determining that the rating associated with the content item is below the threshold comprises determining that a contact rate of customers to a customer service center for support after views of the content item by the customers is higher than a predetermined rate. Kumar teaches wherein determining that the rating associated with the content item is below the threshold comprises determining that a contact rate of customers to a customer service center for support after views of the content item by the customers is higher than a predetermined rate (fig.5; paragraphs 0023, 0033, 0035). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of wherein determining that the rating associated with the content item is below the threshold comprises determining that a contact rate of customers to a customer service center for support after views of the content item by the customers is higher than a predetermined rate in Bueche’s invention in order to conveniently measure a rate of contact of customers to a service center for a desired support.
Regarding claim 6, Bueche teaches wherein the interaction is successful if the user sentiment at an endpoint of the computer-mediated interaction meets a threshold, and wherein identifying information provided by the customer service agent comprises identifying a subset of text, speech, or video of the customer service agent near a time (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31).
However, Bueche does not specifically teach identifying a subset of text, speech, or video of the customer service agent near a time during the computer-mediated interaction at which the user sentiment changes from below the threshold to above the threshold. Kumar teaches identifying a subset of text, speech, or video of the customer service agent near a time during the computer-mediated interaction at which the user sentiment changes from below the threshold to above the threshold (fig.5; paragraphs 0023, 0033, 0035). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of identifying a subset of text, speech, or video of the customer service agent near a time during the computer-mediated interaction at which the user sentiment changes from below the threshold to above the threshold in Bueche’s invention in order to provide a status of a customer interaction without having any inconvenience.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueche (US Patent No. 11,776,542) in view of Schneiderman et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0188997).
Regarding claim 7, Bueche does not specifically teach wherein the subset of text, speech, or video includes a link to a second content item, and wherein generating the content update includes generating text with the link to the second content item, and wherein modifying the content item comprises inserting the text with the link to the second content item in the content item. Schneiderman teaches wherein the subset of text, speech, or video includes a link to a second content item, and wherein generating the content update includes generating text with the link to the second content item, and wherein modifying the content item comprises inserting the text with the link to the second content item in the content item (paragraphs 0003, 0004). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of wherein the subset of text, speech, or video includes a link to a second content item, and wherein generating the content update includes generating text with the link to the second content item, and wherein modifying the content item comprises inserting the text with the link to the second content item in the content item in Bueche’s invention in order to provide a desired update of content beneficial for a customer.
Regarding claim 11, Bueche teaches determining that the information provided by the customer service agent during the computer-mediated interaction is from a third content item (col.6, lines 52-67, col.7, lines 1-10).
However, Bueche does not specifically teach wherein generating the content update comprises one or more of: merging the content item with the third content item, inserting a link to the third content item in the content item, or replacing a portion of the content item with a portion of the third content item. Schneiderman teaches wherein generating the content update comprises one or more of: merging the content item with the third content item, inserting a link to the third content item in the content item, or replacing a portion of the content item with a portion of the third content item (paragraphs 0003, 0004). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of wherein generating the content update comprises one or more of: merging the content item with the third content item, inserting a link to the third content item in the content item, or replacing a portion of the content item with a portion of the third content item in Bueche’s invention in order to provide a desired update of content from which a customer can be benefitted.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueche (US Patent No. 11,776,542) in view of Hays et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0282769).
Regarding claim 8, Bueche teaches wherein the content item includes one or more of item text, item audio, or item video (fig.3-4; col.10, lines 11-67, col.11, lines 14-31).
However, Bueche does not specifically teach wherein modifying the content item comprises determining an insertion point for the additional content. Hays teaches wherein modifying the content item comprises determining an insertion point for the additional content (abstract; paragraphs 0015, 0030, 0033-0038). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of wherein the speech enhancement processing comprises first-order speech enhancement, wherein the first-order speech enhancement comprises at least one of an audio speed change, a volume adjustment, a random displacement, a noise enhancement and a multiplication enhancement in Bueche’s invention as taught by Hays. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to conveniently add an additional information.
Claims 9, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bueche (US Patent No. 11,776,542).
Regarding claim 9, Bueche does not specifically teach wherein the content item is a help article and wherein the computer-mediated interaction is with reference to a user interface of a software product, wherein information provided by the customer service agent includes a screenshot or a video of the user interface of the software product, and wherein the content update comprises the screenshot or the video. Examiner takes an official notice wherein the content item is a help article and wherein the computer-mediated interaction is with reference to a user interface of a software product, wherein information provided by the customer service agent includes a screenshot or a video of the user interface of the software product, and wherein the content update comprises the screenshot or the video item is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of wherein the content item is a help article and wherein the computer-mediated interaction is with reference to a user interface of a software product, wherein information provided by the customer service agent includes a screenshot or a video of the user interface of the software product, and wherein the content update comprises the screenshot or the video in Bueche’s invention in order to provide a desired update of a software product beneficial for a customer.
Regarding claim 10 and 16, Bueche teaches displaying the content to the customer service agent; and receiving confirmation of the content from the customer service agent, wherein modifying the content item is performed in response to receiving the confirmation (col.6, lines 52-67, col.7, lines 1-10).
However, Bueche does not specifically teach displaying the content update and receiving confirmation of the content update. Examiner takes an official notice displaying the content update and receiving confirmation of the content update is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bueche to incorporate the feature of displaying the content update and receiving confirmation of the content update in Bueche’s invention in order to provide a desired updated content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
December 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights