DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 7-6-2026. Claims 1-9, 11 and 13-22 are pending and have been considered below:
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) 1-9, 11 and 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiyagarajan et al. (“Thiyagarajan” 20210377391 A1) in view of Hackman et al. (“Hackman” 20230179548 A1), Young et al. (“Young” 20230127720 A1) and Riddle et al. (“Riddle” 20210004706 A1)
Claim 1: Thiyagarajan discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, content from a plurality of users (Paragraphs 41 and 48; receive comment/question);
generating, by the one or more processors, a respective identifying, by the one or more processors executing a artificial intelligence model based on the received content, a predicted response for each interactive session
(Paragraph 19 and 22; artificial intelligence used to respond to request); determining, by the one or more processors prior to transmitting the predicted response, if a manual input from an agent is received
(Paragraph 55; provides option to edit response);
and automatically transmitting, by the one or more processors after a threshold period of time if the manual input from the agent is not received
(Paragraph 50; automated response after time expired),
the predicted response for each interactive session, wherein the automatically transmitting occurs with respect to multiple interactive sessions concurrently
(Thiyagarajan: abstract Figure 7 Paragraphs 19, 25, 49; the automated response can be implemented on multiple transactions concurrently- Paragraph 59).
Thiyagarajan discloses an interaction window for each of the plurality of users, wherein each respective interaction window corresponds to a respective interactive session (Figure 7 and Paragraphs 49 and 59; interactive windows can represent multiple users);
To further disclose to display wherein each respective interaction window corresponds to a respective interactive session, Hackman is disclosed. Hackman provides a customer assistant functionality and further provides an interactive interface with multiple windows representing each session concurrently (Figures 8a:810 and Paragraph 140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and provide individual interactive window session in Thiyagarajan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as a design choice that improves efficiency by limiting the traversing of multiple screens.
Thiyagarajan may not explicitly disclose all features identifying, by the one or more processors executing a second artificial intelligence model, whether to transmit a notification to an agent, wherein the second artificial intelligence model is trained to predict the likelihood of agent intervention based on historical interactive sessions (Thiyagarajan: Paragraph 24; looks at communication history); transmitting, by the one or more processors, based on the likelihood of agent intervention being above a threshold, the notification to the agent;
Young is provided because it discloses a monitoring system (abstract). Young further discloses determining whether an intervention by sending an alert may be required (Paragraphs 43 and 58), based on learned training of previous sessions (Paragraphs 95 and 102). A threshold is also used to determine if an alert should be sent in order to have a successful resolution (Paragraphs 115-116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and provide threshold alerts in the agent guidance of Thiyagarajan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as an operation used to improve business outcomes and communications (Young: Paragraph 5).
Riddle is also disclosed because it provides an agent escalation functionality that utilizes a first and second artificial intelligence model for the decision process (Figure 3:320/322 and Paragraphs 22 and 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement and provide multiple models as part of the agent guidance in Thiyagarajan. One would have been motivated to provide the functionality as an operation used to specialize on input features allowing for enhanced analysis.
Claim 2: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein the respective interaction window includes a timer element in relation to the predicted response (Thiyagarajan: Figure 7:745 and Paragraph 50).
Claim 3: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 2, wherein the timer element provides an indication of a remaining amount of time of the threshold period of time before the predicted response is automatically transmitted(Thiyagarajan: Figure 7:745 and Paragraph 55).
Claim 4: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein the respective interactive session corresponds to an electronic communication session among two or more of a respective user, the first artificial intelligence model, or an agent (Thiyagarajan: Paragraph 19 and Hackman: Paragraphs 16 and 22; communication between multiple people and agent).
Claim 5: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein the respective interaction windows for each of the plurality of users are provided for output on one or more displays coupled to an agent computing device (Thiyagarajan: Figure 7, Paragraphs 25 and 49 and Hackman: Figure 8a:810; interface layout).
Claim 6: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein the respective interactive windows are cascaded in a panel of the single display (Thiyagarajan: Figure 7 Paragraphs 25 and 49 and Hackman: Figure 8a:810; user interface layout).
Claim 7: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein a visible portion of the respective interaction windows includes a timer and an identifier of the respective user (Thiyagarajan: Figure 7:745 Paragraph 54).
Claim 8: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 7, wherein the timer provides an indication of an elapsed time since a previous response was transmitted to a respective user or an elapsed time from when content was received from the respective user(Thiyagarajan: Paragraph 55 and Hackman: Figure 8a:810; provides timer functionality).
Claim 9: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 8, wherein the previous response is the predicted response or the manual input from the agent(Thiyagarajan: Figure 7 and Paragraph 45; approval or user alert input).
Claim 11: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 10, wherein the notification is at least one of: an audible, a visual notification, or a request for agent intervention(Thiyagarajan: Paragraphs 52; visual indicator).
Claim 13: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 11, wherein the agent intervention corresponds to one or more manual inputs from the agent in response to the received content from a respective user(Thiyagarajan: Paragraphs 14, 18, 20 and 45; alter responses).
Claim 14: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, further comprising terminating, by one or more processors executing the first artificial intelligence model based on the received content, the respective interactive session(Thiyagarajan: Paragraphs 14, 18 and 45; if not approved the model response is not used (terminated)).
Claim 15: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 14, further comprising providing, by the one or more processors as input into the first or second artificial intelligence model, contents of the respective interaction session(Thiyagarajan: Paragraphs 18 and 43, Hackman: Paragraphs 22 and 52).
Claim 16: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 15, further comprising updating, by the one or more processors based on the contents of the respective interactive session, the first or second artificial intelligence model(Thiyagarajan: Paragraphs 18 and 43, Hackman: Paragraphs 22 and 52).
Claim 17: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 15, wherein the contents of the respective interactive session include an indication of when the manual input from the agent was transmitted instead of the predicted response(Thiyagarajan: Figure 7 and Paragraph 20; agent approved).
Claim 18: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein the first artificial intelligence model is a machine learning model or a generative artificial intelligence model(Thiyagarajan: Paragraphs 19 and 22; artificial intelligence models utilized).
Claims 19 and 20 are similar is scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
processor (Thiyagarajan: Paragraph 30-32)
computer readable storage medium (Thiyagarajan: Paragraph 37)
Claim 21: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold period of time based on a number of concurrent interactive sessions the agent is engaged with (Thiyagarajan: Paragraph 56; configurable timer and Hackman: Paragraphs 109, 124; determines multiple users on channels). The configurable timer can be based on channels used in Hackman.
Claim 22: Thiyagarajan, Hackman, Young and Riddle disclose a method of claim 1, wherein: the first artificial intelligence model is different from the second artificial intelligence model, or the first artificial intelligence model is the same as the second artificial intelligence model (Riddle: Figure 3:320/322 and Paragraphs 22 and 31; first and second model).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Young and Riddle are provided to address the limitations found in the amendments (i.e. threshold level and secondary AI models).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
20200285660 A1 Figure 7
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
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.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
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 MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
9-27-2026
