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 a computer processor: sending, 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: 0149); 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 transmitting, using a voice communication channel, data representing the 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 and fig. 10); 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 rescheduling and sending of call data, the method comprising, using a computer processor: transmitting, 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); 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 sending, using at least one communication channel, computer data representing the 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 and fig. 10); 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 a 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 outbound call is associated with a voice campaign, wherein the scheduling is performed based on a priority associated with the 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 call is a dropped inbound call, the dropped call handled by an inbound section including the third device (Elango: paragraphs: 0110).
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 a 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 outgoing call is associated with a voice campaign, wherein the determining of a timing is performed based on a priority associated with the 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).
Conclusion
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