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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, the independent claims (1, 9 and 17) contain the phrase, “the content center system”. However, there is no antecedent basis therefor. Such makes the independent claims unclear.
With respect to claims 2-8, there is nothing in these dependent claims that resolves the problem with independent claim 1.
With respect to claims 10-16, there is nothing in these dependent claims that resolves the problem with independent claim 9.
With respect to claims 18 -20, there is nothing in these dependent claims that resolves the problem with independent claim 17.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,344,573. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are anticipated by the claims of the patent as all the elements of the instant application can be found in the claims of the patent. For example, compare the request at the server in instant claim 1 and the API call request in claim 1 of the patent. The contact center system in instant claim 1 is the external systems in the patent (see claim 5). The workflow instruction document in instant claim 1, compare with claim 10 of the patent. Matching a work item to a worker in instant claim 1, compare to claims 10 – 11 and 14 – 16 of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art found is U.S. Patent Application No. 2007/0038499 (Margulies et al.) and U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0016078 (Karlsson et al.). Margulies et al. deals with workflows in a call center and workflow templates which can be workflow instructions and Karlson et al. disclose workflow instructions on a document but, Karlson et al. do not deal with a call or contact center or the matching of agents to work items.
The prior art found does not teach or disclose alone or in combination at least the highlighted portions below.
A method comprising:
receiving, at a server, a request from a contact center system; and
providing, in response to the request and to the content center system, a workflow instruction document that comprises a set of instructions that define logic on how a work item is paired with a worker.
9. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storage device storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at the system, a request from a contact center system; and
providing, in response to the request and to the content center system, a workflow instruction document that comprises a set of instructions that define logic on how a work item is paired with a worker.
17 A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon, which, when executed by a processor, cause a system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at the system, a request from a contact center system; and
providing, in response to the request and to the content center system, a workflow instruction document that comprises a set of instructions that define logic on how a work item is paired with a worker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 272-7484.
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 PAIR system, see https://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).
10Jan2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights