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 § 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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vymenets (US 20150350437 A1) and further in view of Strinden (US 20190102072 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Vymenets teaches teaches a flow designer system for creating flows, the system comprising:
a database system implemented using a server system (p. 6, par. 0077: “The database server 48 may be included in the remote computing environment 24.”), the database system configurable to cause:
displaying, at a display device, a flow designer design environment configurable to create and edit a flow, the flow designer design environment including a graphical representation of the flow, the flow implementing an automated process including at least a set of actions corresponding to computer-readable instructions (FIG. 3, as detailed on p. 6, par. 0083-0084);
processing an edit to the flow via the flow designer design environment, the edit including one or more of: defining a trigger, or adding one or more actions (p. 2, par. 0033: “According to some embodiments of the present invention, in a system for managing an interaction flow for a contact center, the system includes: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory has stored thereon, instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: display on a graphical display, an interaction flow canvas and an interaction block selection tool; receive a user input to add a first interaction block to the interaction flow canvas; generate a first interaction instruction corresponding to the first interaction block; receive a user input to add a second interaction block to the interaction flow canvas, wherein the first interaction instruction comprises an instruction for proceeding to the second interaction block after a criterion of the first interaction block is satisfied.”); and
updating the graphical representation of the flow according to the edit (p. 2, par. 0035: “According to some embodiments, the instructions further cause the processor to: generate a first flow path and a second flow path originating from the first interaction block; and join the first flow path and the second flow path at the second interaction block.”).
Vymenets fails to teach testing a plurality of different instances of the flow to determine at least if the flow completes successfully, each different instance of the flow differing from one or more other different instances of the flow by one or more elements, the testing of the different instances of the flow causing generation of runtime information about the flow including runtime performance of the different instances of the flow.
Strinden teaches testing a plurality of different instances of the flow to determine at least if the flow completes successfully (par. 0072: “As such, multiple configuration engineers are able to create, modify, and test graphical configurations and definitions (and in some situations, simultaneously) without impacting runtime operations of the subject configurations, e.g., as illustrated by the m draft configurations of ViewN and the published configuration of the ViewN.”), each different instance of the flow differing from one or more other different instances of the flow by one or more elements (par. 0073: “Significantly, various display-related configurations or definitions (whether of display views and/or of display view elements) may respectively define a set of operator-selectable customizations that are made available for the operator to modify the appearance of the corresponding display view or display view element during runtime as the operator desires, without having to create and/or download a revised configuration, and without the display view, the display view element, or the user interface device on which the display view is executing having to obtain additional configuration data indicative of the modification from another computing device (e.g., from a computing device or database included in the configuration environment 102, or from a computing device or database included in the operating environment 102 that locally stores configuration data or copies thereof).”), the testing of the different instances of the flow causing generation of runtime information about the flow including runtime performance of the different instances of the flow (par. 0067: “Typically, a display view definition 112 is configured to include at least one display element (e.g., a graphical element) that is linked to a particular control module, device, or other type of control object so that in the operating environment 105, runtime data associated with the particular control module, device, or control object may be represented via the linked display element(s) on the executing display view, e.g., in a continually or repeatedly updated manner.”).
It would have been obvious to one familiar in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the graphical display configuration of Strinden into the flow designer of Vymenets, as both are in the same field of endeavor of graphical display design for flows. Doing so would enable one to conduct multiple tests simultaneously and more quickly compare runtimes between flows.
Regarding claim 22, Vymenets teaches the flow designer system of claim 21, wherein the runtime information about the flow includes one or more of: a current state, actions or steps run, or runtime values produced (p. 17, par. 0164: “At operation 764, the interaction system may retrieve data associated with the interaction conducted in the first communication channel, and at operation 766, the interaction system may output the retrieved data to an electronic device (e.g., associated with an agent and/or a customer of the contact center). For example, according to some embodiments, upon switching (or initiating in parallel) the interaction to the second communication channel, the interaction system may output, in the second communication channel, the data collected in the first communication channel to an electronic device associated with an agent or a customer of the contact center.”).
Regarding claim 23, Vymenets and Strinden teaches the flow designer system of claim 21. Vymenets further teaches wherein the runtime information about the flow includes one or more of: configuration details or runtime values for components of the flow (p. 3, par. 0059: “According to one embodiment, a contact center dashboard is provided, integrating the controls and displays for monitoring, operating, and configuring a contact center.” In order for the display to allow for configuring a contact center, it would logically need to display configuration details.).
Regarding claim 24, Vymenets and Strinden teaches the flow designer system of claim 23. Vymenets further teaches wherein a trigger or action in the flow designer design environment is selectable to expand an element and display configuration and runtime details about the element (p. 13, par. 0135: “According to one embodiment, all or some of the parameters defined for a particular block are stored in a separate metadata file associated with the routing strategy. The separate metadata file is retrieved at run-time when the routing strategy is executed in response to an interaction with the contact center.”).
Regarding claim 25, Vymenets and Strinden teaches the flow designer system of claim 21. Vymenets further teaches wherein the automated process further includes subflows and can be triggered by an event, resulting in automation of business logic for an application (p. 3, par. 0057: “As the contact center's needs change, different routing strategies or configuration parameters may be selected and deployed for the contact center without requiring reprogramming or redeployment of customized software that may otherwise be generated for the contact center.”).
Regarding claim 26, Vymenets and Strinden teaches the flow designer system of claim 21. Vymenets further teaches wherein the flow designer design environment includes a selector control to display configuration and runtime results for one or more items processed by flow logic (p. 17, par. 0164, as above).
Regarding claim 27, Vymenets and Strinden teaches the flow designer system of claim 21. Vymenets further teaches wherein the flow designer design environment is further configurable to open records related to the flow (p. 9, par. 0106: “the setting parameters 164 may include a debug parameter that enables sending additional log information to the interaction system when an interaction arrives at the block.”).
Regarding claim 28, Vymenets and Strinden teach a computer program product comprising computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Vymenets p. 6, par. 0080: “According to one embodiment, the flow design tool and other functionalities of the web server are enabled via computer program instructions that are stored in memory and that are executed by a microprocessor.”), the program code comprising computer-readable instructions configurable to perform the flow designer system of claim 21 (as above, in claim 21 rejection).
Claim 29 is functionally identical to claim 22, except that it relies on claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 22.
Claim 30 is functionally identical to claim 23, except that it relies on claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 23.
Claim 31 is functionally identical to claim 24, except that it relies on claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 24.
Claim 32 is functionally identical to claim 25, except that it relies on claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 25.
Claim 33 is functionally identical to claim 26, except that it relies on claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 26.
Claim 34 is functionally identical to claim 27, except that it relies on claim 28 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 27.
Claim 35 is functionally identical to claim 21, except that outlines a method rather than a system. As this is not a meaningful enough distinction to constitute patentable material on its own, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 21.
Claim 36 is functionally identical to claim 22, except that it relies on claim 35 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 22.
Claim 37 is functionally identical to claim 23, except that it relies on claim 35 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 23.
Claim 38 is functionally identical to claim 24, except that it relies on claim 35 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 24.
Claim 39 is functionally identical to claim 25, except that it relies on claim 35 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 25.
Claim 40 is functionally identical to claim 26, except that it relies on claim 35 instead of claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 26.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 13 February 2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 21-40 based upon Vymenets (US 20150350437 A1). A new rejection is made in view of Vymenets (US 20150350437 A1), further in view of Strinden (US 20190102072 A1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 13 February 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-40 under Vymenets (US 20150350437 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vymenets (US 20150350437 A1), further in view of Strinden (US 20190102072 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RYAN A BARHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm 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, Xiao Wu, can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/RYAN ALLEN BARHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613