DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of necessitated due to claim amendments.
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.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghuge (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0252510), and further in view of Gocay (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0177147).
Regarding claim 1, Ghuge teaches a computer-implemented method (Paragraphs 0022-0024, 0035), comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a communication sent from a first client device of a first user (Paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0035 call manager receiving caller voice/ speech);
transcribing an audio portion of the communication to determine a topic of the communication (Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0017, 0025, 0037 caller speech analyzed and converted to text and topic determined from text);
identifying a second user associated with the topic of the communication by:
using each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, wherein the plurality of fields includes a subtopic of the topic of the communication (Paragraph 0032 subject matter), an expertise of the second user (Fig. 3 item 306), a current workload of the second user (Paragraph 0041 workload), and an experience level of the second user (Paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0041 experience to handle different levels of callers), and comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second use (Paragraphs 0037-0039); and
routing the communication to a second client device of the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication and the topic of the communication (Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0017, 0038-0039, 0041-0043 route call to agent selected based on expertise to handle the topic) (Paragraphs 0013-0058 for complete details).
Gughe teaches comparing caller and agent attributes for exact match or based on relatedness of attributes, but Gughe does not specifically teach generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields by applying a weight to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore.
However, in the similar field, Gocay teaches generating a subscore for each field (Fig. 4 item 402 each attribute) of a plurality of fields (Fig. 4 item 402 plurality of attributes of each agent) by applying a weight (Fig. 4 item 404 weight) to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user (Paragraph 0008 each agents specific attribute data), and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore (Fig. 4 item 406 scores generated by combining subscores of individual attributes of item 402 multiplied by weight of item 404, using generated scores to rank available agent matching the contact type with its topic, Paragraphs 0009-0014, 0021-0051, For example, routing score for agent Smith generated as follows. English attribute value 100 multiplied by its weight value 0.1 to derive subscore of 10, laptop-sales attribute value 80 multiplied by its weight value 0.45 to derive subscore of 36, and customer satisfaction score attribute value 75 multiplied by its weight value 0.45 to derive subscore of 33.75, adding these subscores (10+36+33.75) to derive routing score of 79.75 for agent Smith as indicated in item 406 of Fig. 4. Similarly, routing score 67.5 generated for agent Tammy.), and routing the communication to a second client device of the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication, the topic of the communication, and the generated routing score (Paragraphs 0026-0034 agent for laptop sales with highest routing score).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Gughe to include generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields by applying a weight to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore as taught by Gocay in order to “select the agent having the highest unique contact proficiency score for the particular contact and instruct the ACD to deliver the contact to the agent” (Gocay, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 2, Ghuge teaches the communication is one of an audio communication (Paragraphs 0015, 0017 0035 voice call speech), a video communication, an email, a text message, a chatbot, and a chat.
Gocay teaches the communication is one of an audio communication (Paragraph 0022), a video communication, an email, a text message (Paragraph 0023), a chatbot, and a chat.
Regarding claim 4, Ghuge teaches the communication is routed automatically to the second user (Paragraphs 0017, 0038-0039, 0041-0043 call manager selecting and routing the call to selected agent).
Gocay teaches the communication is routed automatically to the second user (Paragraphs 0031-0048).
Regarding claim 5, Ghuge teaches identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication includes comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user (Fig. 3 item 306, Fig. 4 item 406, Paragraph 0038).
Gocay teaches identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication includes comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user (Fig. 4 item 402 Paragraphs 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 6, Gocay teaches the routing score is a rank identifying the second user when the routing score reaches a threshold routing score (Paragraphs 0031-0048 each second user ranked obviously based on reaching certain matching threshold).
Regarding claim 7, Ghuge teaches the weighting system further includes a status of the second user (Fig. 3 item 310) (Paragraphs 0031-0043).
Gocay teaches the weighting system further includes a status of the second user (Paragraphs 0027-0031).
Regarding claim 8, Ghuge teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed across one or more processors, causes at least a portion of the one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraphs 0020-0024, 0045-0058) comprising:
receiving a communication sent from a first client device of a first user (Paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0035 call manager receiving caller voice/ speech);
transcribing an audio portion of the communication to determine a topic of the communication (Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0017, 0025, 0037 caller speech analyzed and converted to text and topic determined from text);
identifying a second user associated with the topic of the communication by:
using each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, wherein the plurality of fields includes a subtopic of the topic of the communication (Paragraph 0032 subject matter), an expertise of the second user (Fig. 3 item 306), a current workload of the second user (Paragraph 0041 workload), and an experience level of the second user (Paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0041 experience to handle different levels of callers), and comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second use (Paragraphs 0037-0039); and
routing the communication to a second client device of the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication and the topic of the communication (Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0017, 0038-0039, 0041-0043 route call to agent selected based on expertise to handle the topic) (Paragraphs 0013-0058 for complete details).
Gughe teaches comparing caller and agent attributes for exact match or based on relatedness of attributes, but Gughe does not specifically teach generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields by applying a weight to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore.
However, in the similar field, Gocay teaches generating a subscore for each field (Fig. 4 item 402 each attribute) of a plurality of fields (Fig. 4 item 402 plurality of attributes of each agent) by applying a weight (Fig. 4 item 404 weight) to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user (Paragraph 0008 each agents specific attribute data), and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore (Fig. 4 item 406 scores generated by combining subscores of individual attributes of item 402 multiplied by weight of item 404, using generated scores to rank available agent matching the contact type with its topic, Paragraphs 0009-0014, 0021-0051, For example, routing score for agent Smith generated as follows. English attribute value 100 multiplied by its weight value 0.1 to derive subscore of 10, laptop-sales attribute value 80 multiplied by its weight value 0.45 to derive subscore of 36, and customer satisfaction score attribute value 75 multiplied by its weight value 0.45 to derive subscore of 33.75, adding these subscores (10+36+33.75) to derive routing score of 79.75 for agent Smith as indicated in item 406 of Fig. 4. Similarly, routing score 67.5 generated for agent Tammy.), and routing the communication to a second client device of the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication, the topic of the communication, and the generated routing score (Paragraphs 0026-0034 agent for laptop sales with highest routing score).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Gughe to include generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields by applying a weight to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore as taught by Gocay in order to “select the agent having the highest unique contact proficiency score for the particular contact and instruct the ACD to deliver the contact to the agent” (Gocay, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 9, Ghuge teaches the communication is one of an audio communication (Paragraphs 0015, 0017 0035 voice call speech), a video communication, an email, a text message, a chatbot, and a chat.
Gocay teaches the communication is one of an audio communication (Paragraph 0022), a video communication, an email, a text message (Paragraph 0023), a chatbot, and a chat.
Regarding claim 11, Ghuge teaches the communication is routed automatically to the second user (Paragraphs 0017, 0038-0039, 0041-0043 call manager selecting and routing the call to selected agent).
Gocay teaches the communication is routed automatically to the second user (Paragraphs 0031-0048).
Regarding claim 12, Ghuge teaches identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication includes comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user (Fig. 3 item 306, Fig. 4 item 406, Paragraph 0038).
Gocay teaches identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication includes comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user (Fig. 4 item 402 Paragraphs 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 13, Gocay teaches the routing score is a rank identifying the second user when the routing score reaches a threshold routing score (Paragraphs 0031-0048 each second user ranked obviously based on reaching certain matching threshold).
Regarding claim 14, Ghuge teaches the weighting system further includes a status of the second user (Fig. 3 item 310) (Paragraphs 0031-0043).
Gocay teaches the weighting system further includes a status of the second user (Paragraphs 0027-0031).
Regarding claim 15, Ghuge teaches a computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations (Paragraphs 0020-0024, 0045-0058), comprising:
receiving a communication sent from a first client device of a first user (Paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0035 call manager receiving caller voice/ speech);
transcribing an audio portion of the communication to determine a topic of the communication (Paragraphs 0013-0015, 0017, 0025, 0037 caller speech analyzed and converted to text and topic determined from text);
identifying a second user associated with the topic of the communication by:
using each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, wherein the plurality of fields includes a subtopic of the topic of the communication (Paragraph 0032 subject matter), an expertise of the second user (Fig. 3 item 306), a current workload of the second user (Paragraph 0041 workload), and an experience level of the second user (Paragraphs 0031, 0033, 0041 experience to handle different levels of callers), and comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second use (Paragraphs 0037-0039); and
routing the communication to a second client device of the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication and the topic of the communication (Paragraphs 0013-0014, 0017, 0038-0039, 0041-0043 route call to agent selected based on expertise to handle the topic) (Paragraphs 0013-0058 for complete details).
Gughe teaches comparing caller and agent attributes for exact match or based on relatedness of attributes, but Gughe does not specifically teach generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields by applying a weight to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore.
However, in the similar field, Gocay teaches generating a subscore for each field (Fig. 4 item 402 each attribute) of a plurality of fields (Fig. 4 item 402 plurality of attributes of each agent) by applying a weight (Fig. 4 item 404 weight) to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user (Paragraph 0008 each agents specific attribute data), and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore (Fig. 4 item 406 scores generated by combining subscores of individual attributes of item 402 multiplied by weight of item 404, using generated scores to rank available agent matching the contact type with its topic, Paragraphs 0009-0014, 0021-0051, For example, routing score for agent Smith generated as follows. English attribute value 100 multiplied by its weight value 0.1 to derive subscore of 10, laptop-sales attribute value 80 multiplied by its weight value 0.45 to derive subscore of 36, and customer satisfaction score attribute value 75 multiplied by its weight value 0.45 to derive subscore of 33.75, adding these subscores (10+36+33.75) to derive routing score of 79.75 for agent Smith as indicated in item 406 of Fig. 4. Similarly, routing score 67.5 generated for agent Tammy.), and routing the communication to a second client device of the second user based upon, at least in part, identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication, the topic of the communication, and the generated routing score (Paragraphs 0026-0034 agent for laptop sales with highest routing score).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Gughe to include generating a subscore for each field of a plurality of fields by applying a weight to each field of the plurality of fields in a profile of the second user, and generating a routing score by applying a respective weight to each field of the plurality of fields and then adding each generated subscore as taught by Gocay in order to “select the agent having the highest unique contact proficiency score for the particular contact and instruct the ACD to deliver the contact to the agent” (Gocay, Paragraph 0012).
Regarding claim 16, Ghuge teaches the communication is one of an audio communication (Paragraphs 0015, 0017 0035 voice call speech), a video communication, an email, a text message, a chatbot, and a chat.
Gocay teaches the communication is one of an audio communication (Paragraph 0022), a video communication, an email, a text message (Paragraph 0023), a chatbot, and a chat.
Regarding claim 18, Ghuge teaches the communication is routed automatically to the second user (Paragraphs 0017, 0038-0039, 0041-0043 call manager selecting and routing the call to selected agent).
Gocay teaches the communication is routed automatically to the second user (Paragraphs 0031-0048).
Regarding claim 19, Ghuge teaches identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication includes comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user (Fig. 3 item 306, Fig. 4 item 406, Paragraph 0038).
Gocay teaches identifying the second user associated with the topic of the communication includes comparing the topic of the communication with the profile of the second user (Fig. 4 item 402 Paragraphs 0049-0051).
Regarding claim 20, Gocay teaches the routing score is a rank identifying the second user when the routing score reaches a threshold routing score (Paragraphs 0031-0048 each second user ranked obviously based on reaching certain matching threshold).
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghuge and Gocay as applied to claims 1, 8, 15 above, and further in view of Tuchman (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0044173).
Regarding claim 3, Ghuge and Gocay do not teach the communication is routed manually to the second user.
However, in the similar field, Tuchman teaches the communication is routed manually to the second user (Paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0037-0039, 0054-0055, 0060, 0062, 0075 manually selected expert agent).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the rt before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ghuge and Gocay to include manually routing the communication to the second user as taught by Tuchman in order to “provide a user a sense of control in the resolution of a problem they are having by selecting a person who, a) appears skilled and can help quickly resolve their problem; b) work with someone they have worked with before and feels comfortable with; c) is a person they have worked with before and has a level of truct in them; and d) maintains a high rating based on the feedback of all users previously supported” (Tuchman, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 10, Ghuge and Gocay do not teach the communication is routed manually to the second user.
However, in the similar field, Tuchman teaches the communication is routed manually to the second user (Paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0037-0039, 0054-0055, 0060, 0062, 0075 manually selected expert agent).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the rt before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ghuge and Gocay to include manually routing the communication to the second user as taught by Tuchman in order to “provide a user a sense of control in the resolution of a problem they are having by selecting a person who, a) appears skilled and can help quickly resolve their problem; b) work with someone they have worked with before and feels comfortable with; c) is a person they have worked with before and has a level of truct in them; and d) maintains a high rating based on the feedback of all users previously supported” (Tuchman, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 17, Ghuge and Gocay do not teach the communication is routed manually to the second user.
However, in the similar field, Tuchman teaches the communication is routed manually to the second user (Paragraphs 0020, 0023, 0037-0039, 0054-0055, 0060, 0062, 0075 manually selected expert agent).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the rt before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ghuge and Gocay to include manually routing the communication to the second user as taught by Tuchman in order to “provide a user a sense of control in the resolution of a problem they are having by selecting a person who, a) appears skilled and can help quickly resolve their problem; b) work with someone they have worked with before and feels comfortable with; c) is a person they have worked with before and has a level of truct in them; and d) maintains a high rating based on the feedback of all users previously supported” (Tuchman, Paragraph 0062).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 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 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights