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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 10/14/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “There are significant overlaps of independent claims 1, 10, and 16….” and “… examination of Inventions I, II and III would require at least one or more of the same fields of search, without a serious burden on the examiner…”. This is not found persuasive because of following reasons: Claims of Group I are drawn to an interactive system for providing assistance information to the user interface (classified in class H04M3/4217), claims of Group II are drawn to a method for determining protected information based on threshold security level and providing the protected information to the user interface (classified in class H04M2203/6027) and claims of Group III are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable instructions for providing quality assurance (QA) checklist to the user interface (classified in class H04M3/2227). The inventions I (claims 1-9), II (claims 10-15) and III (claims 16-20) are distinct from each other. Inventions I, II and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the interactive calling features (such as assisting caller by providing protected information based on security level or providing quality assurance check list to the user interface) are not required for providing assisting information to the user (as claimed in group I). The subcombination has separate utility by itself. This subcombination can be used in many different processes and environments. Thus, the Restriction is proper because all these inventions listed are distinct for the reason given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because the intentions have a separate status in the art in view of their different classification. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
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 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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210201916 to Touret et al. (“Touret”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,708,424 to Maestas (“Maestas”).
As to claim 1, Touret discloses a system for interactive calling, the system comprising: one or more memories [paragraphs 0110-0111]; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories [paragraphs 0110-0111], configured to: receive a request for a calling session associated with a topic [Fig. 4: 400, 418, paragraphs 0081-0082, 0085]; establish the calling session between a user device with a first user interface [Fig. 4: 412, paragraphs 0081-0082] and a client device with a second user interface [Fig. 4: 408, paragraphs 0081-0082], wherein the second user interface is provided with first assistance information associated with the topic [Fig. 4: 420, paragraphs 0085-0088]; monitor, based on establishing the calling session, multimedia communications associated with the calling session [Fig. 4, paragraphs 0081-0089]; detect, based on monitoring the multimedia communications associated with the calling session, an event associated with the calling session [Fig. 4: 422, 426, 434, paragraphs 0088-0097: “Brian”, “Company B”, “call Janet”… ]; identify, using an artificial intelligence model, second assistance information to serve to at least one of the user device or the client device based on detecting the event [Fig. 4, paragraphs 0060 (“the types of cards that are selected for display are determined using one or more machine learning models that are trained based on data access patterns of one or more users”, 0088-0097]; and transmit user interface information to the at least one of the user device or the client device to cause a respective user interface to provide the second assistance information for display [Fig. 4: 428, 432, 434, paragraphs 0089-0096].
Touret does not expressly disclose using an artificial intelligence model. Even though, Touret discloses using machine learning models and also neural networks models [paragraph 0060]. It would have been extremely obvious and well known in the art to have machine learning and neural networks models are being artificial intelligence model.
In the same or similar field of invention, Maestas discloses using an artificial intelligence model to provide artificial intelligence assistant [Maestas Abstract, column 5 lines 36-47, also see column 3 lines 24-30].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Touret to use an artificial intelligence model to provide assistant as taught by Maestas. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a system and method for assisting with interactions between agents and customers using an artificially intelligent assistant to increase efficiency of the interaction as well as customer satisfaction [Maestas Abstract].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201919 to Touret et al. (“Touret”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,708,424 to Maestas (“Maestas”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220051664 to Baror et al. (“Baror”).
As to claim 2, Touret and Maestas disclose the system of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]. Touret further discloses regarding generating a transcription of the multimedia communications [paragraphs 0003, 0048, 0056, 0066]; and wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the user interface information [Fig. 4, paragraphs 0003, 0048, 0056, 0066].
Touret and Maestas do not expressly disclose regarding transmitting an instruction to provide the transcription for display via at least one of the first user interface or the second user interface.
In the same or similar field of invention, Baror discloses regarding transmitting an instruction to provide the transcription for display via at least one of the first user interface or the second user interface [Baror Fig. 4B, paragraph 0102].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Touret and Maestas to have a feature of transmitting an instruction to provide the transcription for display via at least one of the first user interface or the second user interface as taught by Baror. The suggestion/motivation would have been to conclude the assisted call more quickly, thereby lessening the overall duration that computer and/or network resources are utilized in performing the assisted call [Baror paragraph 0005].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201919 to Touret et al. (“Touret”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,708,424 to Maestas (“Maestas”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190355042 to Swierk et al. (“Swierk”).
As to claim 3, Touret and Maestas disclose the system of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]. Maestas further discloses regarding generating a sentiment analysis value for the calling session [column 5 lines 4-17];
Touret and Maestas do not expressly disclose regarding transmitting an instruction to replace at least a portion of the first assistance information with the second assistance information, the second assistance information being based on the sentiment analysis value.
In the same or similar field of invention, Swierk discloses regarding transmitting an instruction to replace at least a portion of the first assistance information with the second assistance information, the second assistance information being based on the sentiment analysis value [Swierk Fig. 4B, paragraphs 0006, 0079, 0084-0085, 0092].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Touret and Maestas to have a feature of transmitting an instruction to replace at least a portion of the first assistance information with the second assistance information, the second assistance information being based on the sentiment analysis value as taught by Swierk. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide program instructions to cause an Information Handling System (IHS) to re-rank a plurality of support resources for the customer based, at least, in part, upon the customer emotion or sentiment information [Swierk paragraph 0006].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201919 to Touret et al. (“Touret”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,708,424 to Maestas (“Maestas”) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11706337 to Mitchem et al. (“Mitchem”).
As to claim 4, Touret and Maestas disclose the system of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]. Further, Touret discloses wherein the first assistance information includes a quality assurance (QA) template for the topic [Fig. 4: 420, 424, 428, 430, 432, 436, paragraphs 0045, 0053, 0083-0097]
Touret and Maestas do not expressly disclose transmit an instruction to synchronize the second user interface with a detected position within the QA template, the detected position within the QA template being based on the event.
In the same or similar field of invention, Mitchem discloses transmit an instruction to synchronize the second user interface with a detected position within the QA template, the detected position within the QA template being based on the event [Mitchem column 2 lines 20-23, column 3 line 64 to column 4 line 2, column 11 lines 19-25, “The AI assistant may track the CSR's progress through the workflow, such as based on the CSR's tracking and/or other input indicative of the CSR's progress in the workflow”].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Touret and Maestas to have a feature of transmit an instruction to synchronize the second user interface with a detected position within the QA template, the detected position within the QA template being based on the event as taught by Mitchem. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the responsiveness, accuracy, and/or sensitivity of CSR communications using an AI assistant [Mitchem column 2 lines 12-15].
As to claim 5, Mitchem discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a deviation from the QA template [column 6 lines 64-67: “if the CSR makes an incorrect statement…”]; identify a corrective instruction for the client device based on detecting the deviation from the QA template [column 6 line 64 to column 7 line 6]; and transmit another instruction to the client device to provide the corrective instruction[column 6 line 64 to column 7 line 6, also see column 15 lines 10-24]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0201919 to Touret et al. (“Touret”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,708,424 to Maestas (“Maestas”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240412029 to YANG et al. (“Yang”).
As to claim 6, Touret and Maestas disclose the system of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1].
Touret and Maestas do not expressly disclose regarding transmitting an instruction to provide a feedback request for display via the first user interface; and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a feedback response from the user device based on transmitting the instruction to provide the feedback request for display; and transmit an instruction to the client device to provide additional assistance information for display via the second user interface based on receiving the feedback response.
In the same or similar field of invention, Yang discloses regarding transmitting an instruction to provide a feedback request for display via the first user interface; and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a feedback response from the user device based on transmitting the instruction to provide the feedback request for display; and transmit an instruction to the client device to provide additional assistance information for display via the second user interface based on receiving the feedback response [Yang paragraphs 0092-0094, 0110, also see Figs. 2, 6].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Touret and Maestas to have a feature of transmitting an instruction to provide a feedback request for display via the first user interface; and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive a feedback response from the user device based on transmitting the instruction to provide the feedback request for display; and transmit an instruction to the client device to provide additional assistance information for display via the second user interface based on receiving the feedback response as taught by Yang. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the quality of communications between humans and AIs by automatically augmenting prompts using non-verbal cues [Yang paragraph 0026].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights