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 §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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elango et al (Pub. No. US 2023/0090049 A1; hereinafter Elango) in view of Fillinger et al (Patent No.: US 8,243,719 B1; hereinafter Fillinger)
Consider claims 1, and 8, Elango clearly shows and discloses a computerized system, a computerized method of automatic scheduling and routing of call data, the method comprising, using an outbound dialer system comprising a computer processor: ending, via an outbound digital campaign using a digital messaging channel, a scheduling calendar to a first device, wherein the calendar comprises a plurality of time slots (the caller's calendar may be available by the caller's user computing entity 20 providing the caller's calendar to the management computing entity 10 for scheduling a callback) (paragraphs: 0034, 0149, and 160); scheduling, based on a response to the scheduling calendar, an outbound call between the first device and a second device, the response comprising a selection of one or more of the time slots (the management computing entity 10 may utilize an application program interface (API) or other appropriate interface for obtaining calendar data from the caller's calendar. If the caller's calendar is available, the management computing entity 10 determines one or more candidate time slots within the caller's calendar that is of sufficient duration to support the predicted call duration and which aligns with available timeslots within a customer service agent's calendar, the scheduler may identify one or more available candidate time slots which may be presented to the caller; the scheduler is configured to receive an input from the caller (e.g., an audio-based input) selecting a candidate timeslot for scheduling the callback) (paragraphs: 0149 and 0155); and initiating the scheduled outbound call and transmitting, via an outbound voice campaign using a voice communication channel, data representing the initiated scheduled outbound call based on the scheduling of the outbound call (The scheduler may output an indication of the selected timeslot, such as by generating and transmitting a calendar event for inclusion in the caller's calendar, by transmitting an email or other indication of the scheduled callback to the caller, by generating an audio output to the caller indicating the selected callback time) (paragraphs: 0155-0156, 0160 and fig. 10 and fig. 12); however, Elango does not disclose another example for selection of one or more of the time slots.
In the same field of endeavor, Fillinger clearly specifically discloses another example for selection of one or more of the time slots (The calendar 40 may display available time slots 250 that a call may be scheduled with a particular advisor or a member of an advisor group associated with a particular subject area. The user may click on or otherwise select an available time slot 250. A call may then be scheduled in the selected available time slot) (col.4, lines 22-32, and lines 43-57)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Fillinger into teaching of Elango for the purpose of providing more examples for selection of one or more of the time slots.
Consider claim 15, Elango clearly shows and discloses a computerized method of automatic scheduling and sending of call data, the method comprising, using an outbound dialer system comprising a computer processor: transmitting, via an outbound digital campaign using a digital messaging channel, a timetable to a first device, wherein the timetable comprises a plurality of time windows (the caller's calendar may be available by the caller's user computing entity 20 providing the caller's calendar to the management computing entity 10 for scheduling a callback) (paragraphs: 0149 and 160); determining, based on a response to the scheduling timetable, a timing for an outgoing call between the first device and a second device, the response comprising a selection of one or more of the time windows (the management computing entity 10 may utilize an application program interface (API) or other appropriate interface for obtaining calendar data from the caller's calendar. If the caller's calendar is available, the management computing entity 10 determines one or more candidate time slots within the caller's calendar that is of sufficient duration to support the predicted call duration and which aligns with available timeslots within a customer service agent's calendar, the scheduler may identify one or more available candidate time slots which may be presented to the caller; the scheduler is configured to receive an input from the caller (e.g., an audio-based input) selecting a candidate timeslot for scheduling the callback) (paragraphs: 0149 and 0155); and initiating the scheduled outbound call and sending, via an outbound voice campaign using at least one communication channel, computer data representing the initiated scheduled outgoing call based on the determining of a timing for the outgoing call (The scheduler may output an indication of the selected timeslot, such as by generating and transmitting a calendar event for inclusion in the caller's calendar, by transmitting an email or other indication of the scheduled callback to the caller, by generating an audio output to the caller indicating the selected callback time) (paragraphs: 0155-0156, 160 and fig. 10 and fig. 12); however, Elango does not disclose another example for the response comprising a selection of one or more of the time windows.
In the same field of endeavor, Fillinger clearly specifically discloses another example for the response comprising a selection of one or more of the time windows (The calendar 40 may display available time slots 250 that a call may be scheduled with a particular advisor or a member of an advisor group associated with a particular subject area. The user may click on or otherwise select an available time slot 250. A call may then be scheduled in the selected available time slot) (col.4, lines 22-32, and lines 43-57)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Fillinger into teaching of Elango for the purpose of providing more examples for the response comprising a selection of one or more of the time windows.
Consider claims 2, and 9, Elango and Fillinger clearly show computerized system, the computerized method, comprising determining whether or not a call requires scheduling, the determining comprising checking, using a call record database, if a terminated call is one or more of. a callback, a non-connect, a first time call, an inbound call dropped, and an iterative call; and wherein the sending of the scheduling calendar is performed based on the determining (Elango: paragraphs: 0010-0014; Fillinger: fig. 3).
Consider claims 3, and 10, Elango and Fillinger clearly show computerized system, the computerized method, wherein the scheduled outbound call is associated with [[a]]the outbound voice campaign, wherein the scheduling is performed based on a priority associated with the outbound voice campaign, and wherein the scheduling comprises determining an exact time within one or more selected time slots (Elango: paragraphs: 0010-0014; Fillinger: fig. 3).
Consider claims 4, and 11, Elango and Fillinger clearly show computerized system, the computerized method, wherein the voice communication channel comprises a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) component and an internet protocol private branch exchange (IP PBX) component (Elango: paragraphs: 0052 and 0067; Fillinger: col. 2, lines 39-50).
Consider claims 5, and 12, Elango and Fillinger clearly show computerized system, the computerized method, comprising connecting the call to a third device, the connecting based on a skill required for the call, the skill recorded in a skill database (Elango: paragraphs: 0033, 0043, and 0149).
Consider claims 6, and 13, Elango and Fillinger clearly show computerized system, the computerized method, comprising highlighting one or more slots of the plurality of time slots based on an availability of a resource associated with the skill (Fillinger: col. 7, lines 13-25).
Consider claims 7, and 14, Elango and Fillinger clearly show computerized system, the computerized method, wherein the scheduled outbound call is a dropped inbound call, the dropped call handled by an inbound section including the third device (Elango: paragraphs: 0110 and 160).
Consider claims 16, Elango and Fillinger clearly show the computerized method, comprising identifying whether or not the call requires the determining of a timing, the identifying comprising querying a call record database, the querying to check if the call is one or more of: a callback, a non-connect, a first time call, an inbound call dropped, and an iterative call; and wherein the sending of the timetable is performed based on the identifying (Elango: paragraphs: 0010-0014; Fillinger: fig. 3).
Consider claim 17, Elango and Fillinger clearly show the computerized method, wherein the scheduled outgoing call is associated with the outbound voice campaign, wherein the determining of a timing is performed based on a priority associated with the outbound voice campaign, and wherein the determining of a timing comprises selecting an exact time within one or more selected time windows (Elango: paragraphs: 0010-0014; Fillinger: fig. 3).
Consider claim 18, Elango and Fillinger clearly show the computerized method, wherein the at least one communication channel comprises a voice over internet protocol (VoIP) and an internet protocol private branch exchange (IP PBX) (Elango: paragraphs: 0052 and 0067; Fillinger: col. 2, lines 39-50).
Consider claim 19, Elango and Fillinger clearly show the computerized method, comprising routing the call to an additional device, the routing based on a feature required for the call, the feature recorded in a feature database (Elango: paragraph: 0079).
Consider claim 20, Elango and Fillinger clearly show the computerized method, comprising marking one or more time windows of the plurality of time windows based on an availability of a resource associated with the feature (Elango: 0149 and 0155).
Response to Arguments
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on May 13, 2026. Applicants amended claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that Elango and Fillinger failed to teach the limitation “sending, via an outbound digital campaign using a digital messaging channel, a scheduling calendar to a first device, wherein the calendar comprises a plurality of time slots” and “initiating the scheduled outbound call and transmitting, via an outbound voice campaign using a voice communication channel, data representing the initiated scheduled outbound call based on the scheduling of the outbound call.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments, Elango teaches the management computing entity compares the identified candidate timeslots against a call center's availability times (or against a particular customer service agent's calendar) to identify a subset of candidate timeslots during which the caller and customer service agent are available to connect and resolve the caller's issues. One or more of these candidate timeslots may be presented to the caller as options for scheduling a callback (e.g., via an audio-based output), and the system may receive an audio-based input from the caller to select a timeslot for scheduling the callback (paragraph 0034). The management computing entity 10 may use wireless or wired or Internet Message Access protocols and standards to communicate (paragraph 0058 and 0063).
Elango teaches the management computing entity 10/ read on outbound dialer system (via the scheduler) identifies one or more candidate timeslots, such as based at least in part on calendar data associated with the caller, and the automated voice system presents the one or more candidate timeslots to the caller. The caller selects one of the candidate timeslots; the management computing entity 10 completes the process for scheduling a callback. A customer service agent (the assigned customer service agent) then calls the caller back (agent calls the caller/customer back read on outbound call) at the scheduled call time to resolve the caller's issues (abstract, paragraphs: 0160).
Presenting to the caller the one or more candidate time-periods; receiving input identifying a selected time-period of the one or more candidate timeslots; and scheduling an interaction to address the call-intent for the caller within the selected time-period (paragraph 0008). Fillinger teaches the calendar 40 may display available time slots 250 that a call may be scheduled with a particular advisor or a member of an advisor group associated with a particular subject area. The user may click on or otherwise select an available time slot 250. A call may then be scheduled in the selected available time slot (col.4, lines 22-32, and lines 43-57). As a result, Elango and Fillinger teaches all the limitation of claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 extension fee 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 Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571- 272- 7488. 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).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights