DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 15 October 2025.
Claims 1, 6, 9-10, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 11-13, and 20-27 have been cancelled.
Claims 28-34 have been added.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-19 and 28-34 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants argues that the claims a necessarily rooted in computer technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and in particular, the claims are not directed to overcoming a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Such a computer technology problem is, for example, a problem concerning processor efficiency whereby a possible claim solution optimizes placement and routing procedures. To determine whether an invention claims ineligible subject matter, we engage in a two-step process. First, “we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of [the] patent ineligible concepts”—laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Id. at 2355. “The ‘abstract ideas’ category embodies ‘the longstanding rule’ that ‘[a]n idea of itself is not patentable.’” Id. (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). An abstract idea does not become non abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (limiting an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as a computer, does not confer patent eligibility); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (“[L]imiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . d[oes] not make the concept patentable.”). If it is determined that the patent is drawn to an abstract idea or otherwise ineligible subject matter, at a second step we ask whether the remaining elements, either in isolation or combination with the non-patent ineligible elements, are sufficient to “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1297 (2012)). Put another way, there must be an “inventive concept” to take the claim into the realm of patent eligibility. Id. at 2355. A simple instruction to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“[M]ere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible idea into a patent eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply it’’ is not enough for patent eligibility.’” (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294)). Applicants’ claims use a one or more processors or a computer pertaining to the abstract idea of “organizing human activities” involving determining user inquiries from customer service prompts. Here, the claimed solution is directed to the abstract idea of “organizing human activities” involving determining user inquiries from customer service prompts which is not necessarily rooted in computer technology (customer service requests/inquiries are not only limited and unique to computers or the Internet). Further, the one or more processors or a computer are only used generically; a simple instruction to apply an abstract idea is not enough, regardless of traditional business analog. Hence, the claims are not similar to the DDR Holdings decision, and thus the rejection was not withdrawn.
The Examiner also notes that this argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency results in an inventive concept; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references do not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e. controlling a transfer destination) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications (nor the arguments) that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
The Examiner refers Applicant to the updated rejections below, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-19 and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) generating requirement information from a customer’s voice input to determining a priority of a response to the inquiry based on requirement information indicating a requirement of an inquiry which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “generate...requirement information by converting the requirement being input with a voice into characters determine, based on the requirement information indicating the requirement, a priority of a response to the inquiry,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A customer service assistance device comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to,” (or “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a customer service assistance program causing a computer to achieve” in claim 19) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “A customer service assistance device comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to,” (or “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium recording a customer service assistance program causing a computer to achieve” in claim 19) language, “determine/determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assessing customer assistance inquires to determine a priority for a standby list which is a business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interaction/managing personal behavior. Similarly, the limitation of ranking the icons based on the determined amount of use, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a computer or with computing components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “prompt/prompting,” “receive/receiving,” “store/storing,” and “display/displaying” steps are simply insignificant data gathering and post solution output activities. Next, the claims only recites one additional element – using one or more processors or a computer to perform the steps. The one or more processors or computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using one or more processors or a computer to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “prompt/prompting,” “receive/receiving,” “store/storing,” and “display/displaying” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 7, 9, 12, 16, and 18 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, claims 7, 9, 12, 16, and 18 recite the same abstract idea of “generating requirement information from a customer’s voice input to determining a priority of a response to the inquiry based on requirement information indicating a requirement of an inquiry.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the inputs and outputs which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 8 and 17 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, claims 8 and 17 recite the same abstract idea of “generating requirement information from a customer’s voice input to determining a priority of a response to the inquiry based on requirement information indicating a requirement of an inquiry.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the input to being voice data, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 5-6 and 14-15 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, claims 5-6 and 14-15 recite the same abstract idea of “determining a priority of a response to the inquiry based on requirement information indicating a requirement of an inquiry.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including some sort of degree of similarity which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 28-34 are dependent on claims 1, 10, and 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 19. Therefore, claims 28-34 recite the same abstract idea of “determining a priority of a response to the inquiry based on requirement information indicating a requirement of an inquiry.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including transferring calls, placing calls on hold, and hold times of calls which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1, 5-10, 14-19 and 28-34 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5-10, 14-19 and 28-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makanawala et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0262598) and further in view of Fang et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0183929).
As per claims 1, 10, and 19, Makanawala discloses a customer service assistance device, method performed by a computer and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (hardware modules, software modules, processors, Makanawala ¶46):
receive the requirement from a first terminal device accessible by the customer (exchange messages, social media messages, the service agent 104 may clarify the problem by utilizing the social media systems 22 to further communicate with the customer in 105, where the customer may participate in this discussion in 106, Makanawala ¶33; Hardware-implemented modules may also initiate communications with input or output devices, and can operate on a resource (e.g., a collection of information), ¶96);
determine, based on the requirement information indicating the requirement, a priority of a response to the inquiry (analyze and prioritize, Makanawala ¶33; prioritized message queue, ¶37-¶38) (Examiner notes the queue as the equivalent to the standby list);
store identification information of the inquiry for which the priority is determined in a standby list according to the determined priority, the standby list being a list of the identification information of the inquiry awaiting a response, from among standby lists provided for each of the priority (prioritized message queue, Makanawala ¶37-¶38); and
cause a display to display a screen providing priority information indicating the identification information stored in each of the standby lists, wherein the display is part of a second terminal device different from the first terminal device (The queue prioritization system 2811 may be utilized to provide auto prioritization of the message queue containing incoming social media messages to help agents focus on high profile customers and key issues. The queue prioritization system may be utilized to evaluate incoming social media messages based on different parameters including but not limited to customer influence, message sentiment, customer level and service level agreement (SLA). These parameters may be computed into a single priority score which determines and assigns a priority (e.g., Urgent, Normal and Low) to each message, Makanawala ¶38 and Fig. 3; FIG. 13 illustrates a user interface 1300 of the recommended knowledgebase system 2814, according to an embodiment. The user interface 1300 of FIG. 13 is similar to the user interface 500 of FIG. 5, and includes the previously described customer identification area 1301 (similar to 501), product identification area 1302 (similar to 502), message activity area 1303 (similar to 503), solution finder area 1305 (similar to 505), etc., as described at callouts 501-505 in FIG. 5 described above, ¶75) (Examiner notes the customer interface and agent interfaces as the two different terminal devices).
Makanawala does not expressly disclose prompt, by automatic response, a customer to input a requirement of an inquiry from the customer; generate, using the one or more processors that are separate from the first terminal device, requirement information by converting the requirement being input with a voice into characters.
However, Fang teaches prompt, by automatic response, a customer to input a requirement of an inquiry from the customer; generate, using the one or more processors that are separate from the first terminal device, requirement information by converting the requirement being input with a voice into characters (FIG. 5 shows a flowchart of a method 500 for providing customer service depiction. At block 510, sentiment depiction device 120 may receive customer information and session information in response to a customer interaction with an automated customer service system, such as an IVR system or website chatbot associated with organization 108. For example, a sentiment depiction device 120 may receive customer information and session information in response to a customer initiating a call to call center server 112 using user device 102. In some embodiments, customer information may include customer account data, customer interaction data, and/or customer feedback data. Customer account data may include account information such as car loan account information, mortgage account information, and credit card account information. Further, customer information may include biographical information associated with a particular customer, such as the customer's name, birthday, age, sex, nationality, and address. In some embodiments, session information may include information relating to the customer service call session, such as for example, the amount of time the customer had to wait before being connected to an IVR system or a customer service agent, the amount of time a customer interacted with an IVR system or website chatbot before being connected to a customer service agent, the number of transfers the customer experiences during the call session, transfers times, customer inputs received in response to prompts from an IVR system or website chatbot, such as authentication data and responses to questions posed by the IVR system or chatbot, the topic or nature of inquiry raised by the customer, the location of the customer (e.g., obtained via a geographic location sensor of user device 102 and communicated to call center server 112 or web server 110), IVR selection activity, user voice commands, and any other information relating to the customer's interaction with the system 100 in the immediate instance, Fang ¶72; transcript from customer interaction, ¶53 and ¶71).
Both the Batcha and Makanawala references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with customer service. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Fang’s ability to prompt and transfer interactions such as calls in Makanawala’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a customer service management system that could retrieve and analyze data from a social network as well as traditional customer service channels such as telephonic.
The motivation being that there is a need for improved systems and methods to provide customer sentiment depiction to customer service agents that may allow a customer service agent to provide a customer with a more individualized customer service experience (Fang ¶5).
As per claims 5 and 14, Makanawala and Fang disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Makanawala further discloses wherein the priority is based on at least any one of a degree of similarity between the requirement information of the inquiry at this time and the requirement information of the inquiry made in a past, an emotion of the customer being discriminated based on the requirement information, and logicality of the requirement indicated by the requirement information (The similar message system 2813 may be utilized to display messages that are similar to the social media message that is presently being processed by the service agent. The similar message may include a response/solution that may be applicable to the social media message and utilized by the service agent to resolve the problem, Makanawala ¶40; As seen in FIG. 5, the message activity area 503 may include an internal message number assigned to the message by the social activity management platform 28, a particular company customer service agent assigned to handle the message; any messages, posts or queries from the customer service agent to other company staff, and any responses from the other company staff. Thus, whenever any company employee accesses the user interface 500 of the similar message system 2813 and accesses the corresponding message, that employee can see the complete chronological history of all internal actions that have been taken by other employees with regards to this message. The message activity area 503 may also show any communications with the external customer that posted the message, ¶54; message sentiment history, ¶52) (Examiner notes the message sentiment as the equivalent to the emotion of a customer being discriminated based on the required information).
As per claims 6 and 15, Makanawala and Fang disclose as shown above with respect to claims 5 and 14. Makanawala further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the display to display a screen providing information of a past case having a high degree of similarity (similar messages, Makanawala ¶48-¶52).
As per claims 7 and 16, Makanawala and Fang disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Makanawala further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to acquire, when a response processing request for requesting processing enabling the response is input, the identification information of the inquiry being a target of the response processing request from the standby list (The queue prioritization system 2811 may be utilized to provide auto prioritization of the message queue containing incoming social media messages to help agents focus on high profile customers and key issues. The queue prioritization system may be utilized to evaluate incoming social media messages based on different parameters including but not limited to customer influence, message sentiment, customer level and service level agreement (SLA). These parameters may be computed into a single priority score which determines and assigns a priority (e.g., Urgent, Normal and Low) to each message, Makanawala ¶38 and Fig. 3; FIG. 13 illustrates a user interface 1300 of the recommended knowledgebase system 2814, according to an embodiment. The user interface 1300 of FIG. 13 is similar to the user interface 500 of FIG. 5, and includes the previously described customer identification area 1301 (similar to 501), product identification area 1302 (similar to 502), message activity area 1303 (similar to 503), solution finder area 1305 (similar to 505), etc., as described at callouts 501-505 in FIG. 5 described above, ¶75).
In addition, the Examiner asserts that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses (See MPEP 2111.04). In the instant case, the recited "when a response processing request for requesting processing enabling the response is input, the identification information of the inquiry being a target of the response processing request from the standby list" is not a positive method step as it do not require any actual positive recited claim steps to be performed; nor does it modify any of the positively claimed method steps. Similarly, the recited wherein clause is not a positive device or system element since it doesn’t structurally limit the system and merely describes the intended use of the system and/or the intended result of the use of the device or system.
As per claims 8 and 17, Makanawala and Fang as shown above with respect to claims 7 and 16. Fang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to instruct, when the response processing request is input, a call control device that controls a transfer destination of a call in such a way as to transfer a call of the inquiry being a target of the response processing request to a phone call terminal associated with a terminal of a request source of the response processing request (In some embodiments the system 100 may execute a customer service action in response to generating an updated customer sentiment estimate. A customer service action may be an action that is automatically carried out by the system 100 to modify or improve the customer service experience of the customer. For example, customer service actions may include, displaying or modifying a script for interacting with the customer, routing the customer call to a particular customer service agent or to a particular group of customer service agents based on the customer's sentiment, accent, or some other customer characteristic, presenting information to the customer or customer service agent based on the customer's preferences, and changing the position of the customer call in a queue to speak with a customer service agent. A script for interacting with the customer may be displayed or modified to provide a more personal experience. For example, if the customer's birthday is coming up soon, the script may be modified to include a statement about the customer's birthday, or if a customer submitted a bad review or survey in the past, a script may be modified to address the concerns of the bad review or survey, or if the customer sentiment estimate indicates that the customer is frustrated, a script may be modified to say, for example, “We understand you are frustrated with the situation and we deeply apologize and appreciate your patience in resolving this issue.” It should be understood that a script for interacting with a customer may be stored on sentiment depiction device 120, database 118, call center 112, employee terminal 112, or some other device, and accordingly the sentiment depiction device 120 may access and modify the script any such other device. In some embodiments, the call center server 112 may maintain a queue of calls that are waiting to speak to a customer service agent. In some embodiments, the sentiment depiction device 120 may transmit a message to the call center server 112 instructing it to move or prioritize a particular call, based on the indication of the detected customer voice characteristic of the customer. Lastly, in response to detecting that the customer has a particular accent, the system 100 may cause the a call connected to the call center server to be connected to a particular customer service agent or group of agents at call center server 112 or CSR terminal 122. Pairing a customer with a customer service agent having a similar accent or who is from the same region may allow the customer to more easily communicate with the customer service agent, thereby enhancing the customer's experience, Fang ¶71).
In addition, the Examiner asserts that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses; (B) "wherein" clauses; and (C) "whereby" clauses (See MPEP 2111.04). In the instant case, the recited "when the response processing request is input, a call control device that controls a transfer destination of a call in such a way as to transfer a call of the inquiry being a target of the response processing request to a phone call terminal associated with a terminal of a request source of the response processing request" is not a positive method step as it do not require any actual positive recited claim steps to be performed; nor does it modify any of the positively claimed method steps. Similarly, the recited wherein clause is not a positive device or system element since it doesn’t structurally limit the system and merely describes the intended use of the system and/or the intended result of the use of the device or system.
As per claims 9 and 18, Makanawala and Fang disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Makanawala further discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to cause the display to display a screen providing the requirement information (The queue prioritization system 2811 may be utilized to provide auto prioritization of the message queue containing incoming social media messages to help agents focus on high profile customers and key issues. The queue prioritization system may be utilized to evaluate incoming social media messages based on different parameters including but not limited to customer influence, message sentiment, customer level and service level agreement (SLA). These parameters may be computed into a single priority score which determines and assigns a priority (e.g., Urgent, Normal and Low) to each message, Makanawala ¶38 and Fig. 3; FIG. 13 illustrates a user interface 1300 of the recommended knowledgebase system 2814, according to an embodiment. The user interface 1300 of FIG. 13 is similar to the user interface 500 of FIG. 5, and includes the previously described customer identification area 1301 (similar to 501), product identification area 1302 (similar to 502), message activity area 1303 (similar to 503), solution finder area 1305 (similar to 505), etc., as described at callouts 501-505 in FIG. 5 described above, ¶75).
As per claims 28 and 30, Makanawala and Fang as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Fang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: transfer a call of the inquiry based on the identification information of the inquiry selected by an operator to a call terminal of the operator (In some embodiments, the call center server 112 may maintain a queue of calls that are waiting to speak to a customer service agent. In some embodiments, the sentiment depiction device 120 may transmit a message to the call center server 112 instructing it to move or prioritize a particular call, based on the indication of the detected customer voice characteristic of the customer. Lastly, in response to detecting that the customer has a particular accent, the system 100 may cause the a call connected to the call center server to be connected to a particular customer service agent or group of agents at call center server 112 or CSR terminal 122. Pairing a customer with a customer service agent having a similar accent or who is from the same region may allow the customer to more easily communicate with the customer service agent, thereby enhancing the customer's experience, Fang ¶71).
As per claims 29, 31, and 33, Makanawala and Fang as shown above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19. Fang further teaches wherein a hold time for the inquiry is shown on the display (the amount of time the customer had to wait before being connected to an IVR system or a customer service agent (i.e., the hold time), the number of transfers the customer has experienced during the call session, the amount of time a customer interacted with an IVR system before being connected to a customer service agent, customer inputs received in response to prompts from the IVR system, such as authentication data and responses to questions posed by the IVR system, the topic or nature of inquiry raised by the customer, the location of the customer (e.g., obtained via a geographic location sensor of user device 102 or a reverse lookup on a PSTN telephone and communicated to call center server 112), customer interactions with the IVR system, and any other information relating to the customer's interaction with the system 100 in the immediate instance, Fang ¶66; information pertaining to the current customer service call, such as how long the customer has been on hold for or whether it is raining at the location of the customer, ¶73).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Fang’s ability to prompt and transfer interactions such as calls in Makanawala’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a customer service management system that could retrieve and analyze data from a social network as well as traditional customer service channels such as telephonic.
The motivation being that there is a need for improved systems and methods to provide customer sentiment depiction to customer service agents that may allow a customer service agent to provide a customer with a more individualized customer service experience (Fang ¶5).
As per claims 32, Makanawala and Fang as shown above with respect to claim 19. Fang further teaches wherein the list control function transfers a call of the inquiry based on the identification information of the inquiry selected by an operator to a call terminal of the operator (For example, customer service actions may include promoting the call to the head of the queue to speak with a customer service agent, or modifying a script for interacting with the customer that is used by the customer service agent to provide more personalized customer service, Fang ¶87).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Fang’s ability to prompt and transfer interactions such as calls in Makanawala’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a customer service management system that could retrieve and analyze data from a social network as well as traditional customer service channels such as telephonic.
The motivation being that there is a need for improved systems and methods to provide customer sentiment depiction to customer service agents that may allow a customer service agent to provide a customer with a more individualized customer service experience (Fang ¶5).
As per claims 34, Makanawala and Fang as shown above with respect to claim 19. Fang further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: place the first terminal device on hold during determining the priority of the response to the inquiry; receive a response processing request from the second terminal device; and instruct a control device to connect the first terminal device to the second terminal device in response to receiving the response processing request (For example, customer service actions may include promoting the call to the head of the queue to speak with a customer service agent, or modifying a script for interacting with the customer that is used by the customer service agent to provide more personalized customer service, Fang ¶87).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Fang’s ability to prompt and transfer interactions such as calls in Makanawala’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a customer service management system that could retrieve and analyze data from a social network as well as traditional customer service channels such as telephonic.
The motivation being that there is a need for improved systems and methods to provide customer sentiment depiction to customer service agents that may allow a customer service agent to provide a customer with a more individualized customer service experience (Fang ¶5).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629