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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/05/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. This in response to an RCE amendment filed 12/05/2025. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1, 10 and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are now pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandikas (Pub.No.: 2018/0270351 A1) in view of Riahi et al. (Pub.No.: 2014/0270109 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 14, Vandikas teaches a method, apparatus and one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (see abstract) comprising:
obtaining an incoming call directed to an enterprise entity (reads on receiving the call, see [0021] [0045-0055], [0061] and [0026] wherein the first group of subscribers already defined and registered in the call manger node 200);
identifying a candidate list of enterprise endpoint devices to which to route the incoming call (see [0045-0055] and [0061]);
transmitting, to a routing policy server, a query regarding whether the incoming call is to be routed to the candidate list of enterprise endpoint devices, wherein the query includes an indication of the candidate list of enterprise devices (reads on the first group list, see [0045-0055] and [0061]); and
obtaining, from the routing policy server, a response including an updated list of enterprise endpoint devices to which to route the incoming call, wherein the updated list is different than the candidate list (note that a call manager node may send a second caller-specific group number, see [0050]).
Vandikas does not specifically teach “a hunt group including a call hunt policy” wherein the call hunt policy”, “determining, by the call agent, that the call hunt policy includes a policy-enabled indicator that is set to true to indicate that the call agent is to query a routing policy server to determine whether the incoming call is to be routed to the candidate list of enterprise endpoint devices, wherein the call hunt policy further comprises identifying information for the routing policy server” and “based on policy-enabled indicator being set to true for the call hunt policy and the identifying information for the routing policy server included in the call hunt policy”. In other words, Vandikas does not specifically teach that the call hunt policy includes a policy-enabled indicator set to true or explicitly describe identifying information for the routing policy server as part of the call hunt policy.
However, Riahi teaches routing strategies/policies that enable or trigger routing server consultation, see ([0201]- [0202]). Riahi explicitly teaches a call server sends a routing request to a routing server (as in [0102]), upon receiving the request, the routing server consult other system components and determines how the call should be routed based on the enterprise contact center’s policy or strategy [see [0201]], then the routing server responds back to the call server with routing instructions that cause the call to be routed to a selected destination different from the original routing attempt (see [0102]-[0202]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify Vandikas to include an explicit policy-enabled indicator within the call hunt policy, as taught by Riahi, to control whether the call agent queries a routing policy server.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the updated list identifies at least one new enterprise endpoint device that is not included in the candidate list of enterprise endpoint devices (see Vandikas [0050] and [0099]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the at least one new enterprise endpoint device is included in the updated list based on availability information of at least one enterprise user associated with the at least one new enterprise endpoint device (may reads on the availability for that specific caller, see Vandikas [0023]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the updated list does not include at least one endpoint device that is included in the candidate list of enterprise endpoint devices (reads on new second group, see Vandikas [0050] and [0099]).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 18, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the response further identifies a strategy through which to route the incoming call to the enterprise endpoint devices of the updated list (see Vandikas [0076-0077]).
Claims 6 and 19 recite “wherein the strategy indicates that the incoming call is to be routed to all of the enterprise endpoint devices simultaneously”. Vandikas features already addressed in the above rejection. Note that Vandikas teaches does not specifically teach “incoming call is to be routed to all of the enterprise endpoint devices simultaneously” as recited in dependent claims 6, 12 and 19, however, Vandikas disclosed sequential routing ad discussed in [0030] and Fig.2 elements D1, D2 and D3. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to choose best routing strategy based on need, desire and other rule/priorities within the Vandikas system.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the strategy indicates one of:
a top-down serial strategy in which routing for the incoming call is to be provided in a fixed order from a first enterprise endpoint of the updated list to a last enterprise endpoint of the updated list (see Vandikas [0030] and Fig.2, elements D1, D2 and D3);
a circular serial strategy in which routing for the incoming call is to start with a first enterprise endpoint device of the updated list;
a longest-idle serial strategy in which routing for the incoming call is to start with an enterprise endpoint device of the updated list that has been idle a longest amount of time; or
a weighted serial strategy in which the incoming call is to start with an enterprise endpoint device of the updated list based on a statistical basis.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the strategy indicates one of:
a top-down serial strategy in which routing for the incoming call is to be provided in a fixed order from a first enterprise endpoint of the updated list to a last enterprise endpoint of the updated list (see Vandikas [0030] and Fig.2, elements D1, D2 and D3);
a circular serial strategy in which routing for the incoming call is to start with a first enterprise endpoint device of the updated list;
a longest-idle serial strategy in which routing for the incoming call is to start with an enterprise endpoint device of the updated list that has been idle a longest amount of time;
a weighted serial strategy in which the incoming call is to start with an enterprise endpoint device of the updated list based on a statistical basis; or
that the incoming call is to be routed to all of the enterprise endpoint devices simultaneously.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Vandikas and Riahi teaches wherein the identifying information for the routing policy server is a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), an Internet Protocol (IP) address, or a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) for the routing policy server (see [0137] and [0208] of Riahi and [0028] of Vandikas).
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
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).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693