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 .
This communication is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 26 June, 2025.
Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending.
Claim 10 is cancelled.
New claim 21 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record (Nadalin et al US 2017/0295280), does not teach the amended limitation (previously claimed in dependent claim 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds that Nadalin (Abstract) provides for “a multi-channel communication services uses an object-oriented approach to processing communications”. Further in this regard, Nadalin (Fig.2) provides for the setup of such a communication. Nadalin [0031] provides “various elements of a multi-channel communication service 100. The elements include a conversation service 101, a voice application programming interface (VAPI) 102, and a conversation application programming interface (CAPI) 103”. Further, Nadalin Fig. 5 and corresponding description in [0066-0067] provides “a flow chart illustrating an example technique 500 for processing a call in accordance with the invention. In step S502 the VAPI 102 receives notification of one or more inbound calls from the conversation service 101. In step S504, the VAPI 102 identifies which application is associated with each inbound call contact number. At S506, the VAPI 102 then notifies the identified application of the inbound call…At S508, the application sends the VAPI 102 a call control object. As previously discussed, the inbound contact number may provide parameters determining the actions in the call control object. At S510, the VAPI 102 executes the call control object by performing the ordered actions in the stack of JSON objects”. Examiner finds that, this setup provides for identifying and relaying of customer (wherein customer can be broadly interpreted as any inbound call to the communication service) and agent (which can be broadly interpreted as any facilitating entity of the conversation service that provides setup services to connect the customer to their desired services, such as the VAPI 102) information to ultimately connect the customer to the appropriate application provides for Applicant’s argued limitation “the configuration data comprising customer configuration data and agent configuration data”. Additionally, examiner would like to note that the claimed “customer configuration data” and “agent configuration data” are quite broad terms and can be reasonably interpreted to be any information required from each party to set up a communication. Based on such rationale and the above excerpts from Nadalin, examiner ultimately finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained. The same is applicable to amended claims 11 and 18.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes (US 2023/0128700), in view of Nadalin et al (US 2017/0295280).
Regarding claim 1, Maes teaches a system comprising:
one or more processors (Maes fig.12);
and a memory that stores instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from an omni-channel orchestrator and via a first application programming interface (API), a first request to create a communication session, the first request including a customer identifier (Maes [0016] provides for omni-channel; [0082] provides for “customer application” or “enterprise application”, which can be reasonably interpreted as providing for a customer identifier for a request; Maes fig.4 steps s402-s410);
sending, to a media configuration data server and via a second API, a second request that includes the customer identifier (Maes fig.7 and [0110]);
receiving, from the media configuration data server, a response to the second request, the response including configuration data for the customer identifier (Maes fig.7 and [0110], wherein the EMS system provides for servers);
and creating the communication session based on the configuration data (Maes fig.7 and [0110], wherein interactions provide for communication).
Maes teaches the above setup, but Maes does not explicitly teach the configuration data comprising customer configuration data and agent configuration data. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nadalin teaches the configuration data comprising customer configuration data and agent configuration data Nadalin (Abstract) provides for “a multi-channel communication services uses an object-oriented approach to processing communications”. Further in this regard, Nadalin (Fig.2) provides for the setup of such a communication. Nadalin [0031] provides “various elements of a multi-channel communication service 100. The elements include a conversation service 101, a voice application programming interface (VAPI) 102, and a conversation application programming interface (CAPI) 103”. Nadalin Fig. 5 and corresponding description in [0066-0067] provides “a flow chart illustrating an example technique 500 for processing a call in accordance with the invention. In step S502 the VAPI 102 receives notification of one or more inbound calls from the conversation service 101. In step S504, the VAPI 102 identifies which application is associated with each inbound call contact number. At S506, the VAPI 102 then notifies the identified application of the inbound call…At S508, the application sends the VAPI 102 a call control object. As previously discussed, the inbound contact number may provide parameters determining the actions in the call control object. At S510, the VAPI 102 executes the call control object by performing the ordered actions in the stack of JSON objects”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Nadalin for various types of requests available in a customer service interface. The teachings of Nadalin, when implemented in the Maes system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an ease of communication between businesses and customers. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Maes has taught the system of claim 1 including receiving, from the omni-channel orchestrator and via the first API, a third request (Maes [0110] provides for back-and-forth interactions), but Maes does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: a request to end the communication session. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Nadalin teaches a request to end the communication session (Nadalin Table 10 provides for ending a conference/communication).
Regarding claim 3, the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the omni-channel orchestrator and via the first API, a third request to add a participant to the communication session (Nadalin fig.7 and [0072] provides for adding members to a conversation). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the system of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the omni-channel orchestrator and via the first API, a fourth request to mute the participant (Nadalin [0051] provides for muting members). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises an identifier of a media file (Nadalin Table 1 provides for identifiers). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises a callback uniform resource locator (URL) (Nadalin [0047] provides “…the callback address 327a is a Uniform Resource Locator (URL)”). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises a ring timeout value (Nadalin Table 2 provides for timeout time in seconds). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data indicates whether a participant is muted (Nadalin Table 10, [0051] provides for muting members). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the system of claim 1, wherein the configuration data comprises customer configuration data and agent configuration data (Nadalin [0077] provides for calling party/customer and Agent information). Motivation provided with reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 12, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 2, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 14, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 4, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 5, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 7, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 18, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 1, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 19, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 2, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Regarding claim 20, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 3, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes (US 2023/0128700), in view of Nadalin et al (US 2017/0295280), further in view of Kim et al (US 2019/0253368).
Regarding claim 6, Maes-Nadalin has taught the system of claim 1 and configuration data, but Maes-Nadalin does not explicitly teach an indication of a maximum number of participants in the communication session. However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches an indication of a maximum number of participants in the communication session (Kim [0116] provides “For example, the profile of a RCS network may include, for example, and without limitation, at least one of maximum concurrent open sessions, maximum bot information query rate, maximum equipment presence query rate, maximum message rate, maximum message data bandwidth, maximum group chats, maximum group chat members, maximum broadcast recipients, maximum file transmission rate, or the like, which is set for the RCS network.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Kim for an upper limit on the number of participants. The teachings of Kim, when implemented in the Maes-Nadalin system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to provide better customer service quality by limiting the number of participants in a session. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains limitations found within those of claim 6, and the same rationale of rejection applies, where applicable.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes (US 2023/0128700), in view of Nadalin et al (US 2017/0295280), further in view of Coraluppi et al (US 2007/0124379).
Regarding claim 21, Maes-Nadalin has taught the system of claim 20, including receiving requests from the omni-channel orchestrator via an API (Maes figs.4, 7), but Maes-Nadalin does not explicitly teach further comprising: a fourth request to mute the participant.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Coraluppi teaches to mute a participant (claim 8).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Coraluppi for muting a participant of a session. The teachings of Coraluppi, when implemented in the Maes-Nadalin system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to have control capabilities in a communication session. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to arrive at the above-claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Orr et al US 2021/0044555.
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 ISHRAT RASHID whose telephone number is (571)272-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Tonia L Dollinger can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/I.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459