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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-11,14-24, 26, 28-30, and 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Koppolu et al. (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2010/0319063 A1).
In regards to claims 1 and 20, Koppolu discloses a call routing system (e.g., communications security system/system 100) and a call routing method comprising: a branch exchange system (e.g., communication server 310) adapted to receive telephone calls (See pg. 1, paragraph [0001] and pg. 2, paragraph [0026]); a session initiation protocol server (i.e., SIP) operative with the branch exchange system, the session initiation protocol server further having a firewall adapted to allow telephone calls to pass therethrough (i.e., based on a SIP header and/or SIP invite message) (See pg. 2, paragraph 0025] – [0026]); at least one automated attendant system (i.e., automated agent/callee client 308) adapted to request authentication for said telephone calls (See pg. 2, paragraph [0028] and pg. 3, paragraph [0036]); at least one computerized telephone device adapted to receive telephone calls and notifications of telephone calls routed through the session initiation protocol server and sent from the branch exchange system (See pg. 2, paragraph [0026] and pg. 2, paragraph [0028]); and, the branch exchange system adapted to route telephone calls based on the validity of said authentication (See pg. 2, paragraph [0026] and pg. 2, paragraph [0028]).
In regards to claims 2 and 21, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein telephone calls are further validated by way of automatic number identification (i.e., caller trust level information) (See pg. 2, paragraph [0025]).
In regards to claims 3 and 22, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein telephone calls are adapted to be routed based on validation of at least one breakthrough routing identifier (See pg. 2, paragraph [0028]).
In regards to claim 4 and 23, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein there is at least one second breakthrough routing identifier (See pg. 2, paragraph [0028]).
In regards to claim 5 and 24, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to allow users to add, change, and remove parties from whom telephone calls with valid authentication will be accepted (See pg. 3, paragraph [0030] and pg. 3, paragraph [0033]).
In regards to claims 7 and 26, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein breakthrough routing identifiers are adapted to override invalidations of said selected authentications (See pg. 3, paragraph [0035]).
In regards to claims 9 and 28, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein breakthrough routing identifiers are adapted to override authentication blocks (See pg. 3, paragraph [0035]).
In regards to claims 10 and 29, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to validate selected telephone calls within selected time periods assigned to those selected telephone calls (See pg. 2, paragraph [0020]).
In regards to claims 11 and 30, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein breakthrough routing identifiers are adapted to override invalidations of said selected telephone calls (See pg. 3, paragraph [0035]).
In regards to claims 14 and 33, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to deliver audio files and text files to at least one computerized communication device (See pg. 3, paragraph [0036]).
In regards to claims 15 and 34, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to deliver audio files and text files to at least one second computerized telephone device by way of manual direction (See pg. 3, paragraph [0036]).
In regards to claims 16 and 35, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein each computerized telephone device of the at least one computerized telephone device can be configured to one of multiple audio file and text file delivery options (See pg. 5-6, paragraph [0064]).
In regards to claims 17 and 36, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein each computerized telephone device of the at least one computerized telephone device can be configured wherein audio file and text file delivery options include assigning at least one priority-level identifier for a period of time to the corresponding audio files and text files (i.e., mid-call to require a higher security level) (See pg. 2, paragraph [0020])
In regards to claim 18 and 37, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein the at least one priority-level identifier is assigned manually (See pg. 2, paragraph [0020]).
In regards to claims 19 and 38, Koppolu discloses the call routing system and method, wherein a large language module is adapted to analyze audio files and text files for at least one or more of terms, context, inflection, and speech pattern similarity (See pg. 3, paragraph [0036]).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppolu et al. (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2010/0319063 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-11,14-24, 26, 28-30, and 33-38 above, and further in view of Robertson (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2014/0115341 A1).
In regards to claims 6 and 25, Koppolu discloses all of claims 6 and 25 limitations, except the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to validate selected authentication only if entered within selected time periods assigned to those selected authentications. Robertson, however, does disclose wherein the branch exchange system (i.e., telephony network 113, pg. 7, paragraph [0056]) is adapted to validate selected authentication only if entered within selected time periods (i.e., one time) assigned to those selected authentications (See pg. 1, paragraph [0014] and pg. 8, paragraph [0065]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include these limitations within the system and method, as a way of facilitating a one-time password authentication procedure.
In regards to claims 8 and 27, Koppolu discloses all of claims 8 and 27 limitations, except the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to block selected authentications if entered outside selected time periods assigned to those given authentications. Robertson, however, does disclose the call routing system and method, wherein the branch exchange system is adapted to block selected authentications if entered outside selected time periods (i.e., the one-time password has reached its limited period of time) assigned to those given authentications (See pg. 9, paragraph [0078] – [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include these limitations within the system and method, as a way of facilitating a one-time password authentication procedure.
Claim(s) 12, 31, 13, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koppolu et al. (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2010/0319063 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, 14-24, 26, 28-30, and 33-38 above, and further in view of Dai et al. (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2024/0244136 A1).
In regards to claims 12 and 31, Koppolu discloses all of claims 12 and 31 limitations, except the call routing system and method, further comprising: a voicemail system operative with the branch exchange system and the at least one computerized telephone device, the voicemail system adapted to record said telephone calls as audio files; a speech-to-text software program adapted to convert said audio files into text files; at least one database operative with the voicemail system adapted to receive and store audio files and text files of the recorded telephone calls; and, the branch exchange system adapted to deliver audio files and text files from said at least one database to corresponding computerized telephone devices. Dai, however, does disclose a voicemail system (i.e., voicemail transcription service) operative with the branch exchange system (i.e., PBX) and the at least one computerized telephone device (e.g., client 104A – 104D), the voicemail system adapted to record said telephone calls as audio files (See pg. 3, paragraph [0030] and pg. 5, paragraph [0056]); a speech-to-text software program (i.e., speech-to-text engine) adapted to convert said audio files into text files (See pg. 7-8, paragraph [0073]); at least one database (i.e., contains stored recording) operative with the voicemail system adapted to receive and store audio files and text files of the recorded telephone calls (See pg. 7-8, paragraph [0073]); and, the branch exchange system adapted to deliver audio files and text files from said at least one database to corresponding computerized telephone devices (See pg. 7-8, paragraph [0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include these limitations within the system and method, as a way of training an intent matching engine of a contact center which may be implemented over a telephone or computer network.
In regards to claims 13 and 32, Koppolu discloses all of the claims 13 and 32 limitations, except the call routing system and method, wherein telephone calls are routed to the voicemail system upon receipt by the branch exchange system of corresponding identity codes. Dai, however, does disclose wherein telephone calls are routed to the voicemail system upon receipt by the branch exchange system of corresponding identity codes (See pg. 3, paragraph [0030] and pg. 5, paragraph [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include these limitations within the system and method, as a way of training an intent matching engine of a contact center which may be implemented over a telephone or computer network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasan et al. (US Patent Application, Pub. No.: US 2024/0098147 A1) teach a method and system for managing user interactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THJUAN KNOWLIN ADDY whose telephone number is (571)272-7486. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 5:00PM Mon-Fri.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at (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 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.
/THJUAN K ADDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights