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 Office Action is responsive to the communications filed on 8 February 2024. Claims 1-29 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. P/BD/2021/000247, filed on 08 August 2021.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the dialogue engine (103), user model (105), user model update component (104), and user rank classifier (106) in claims 25-29, respectively..
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-15
Independent claim 1 recites “a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from a user during the voice-based interaction; b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score- threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes; c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold; and f. providing the user with a user- interface based on the user rank.”
The limitations of “a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from a user during the voice-based interaction; b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score- threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes; c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold; and f. providing the user with a user- interface based on the user rank”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting an “interactive voice response system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “interactive voice response system” language, “a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from a user during the voice-based interaction; b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score- threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes; c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold; and f. providing the user with a user- interface based on the user rank” can be performed by human mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites an additional element – using a processor to adapt the user interface of the interactive voice response system in the preamble. The processor in this step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of generating graphical elements in the graphical user interface) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer system to perform “adapting the user interface of the interactive voice response system” to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-15 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 16-24
Independent claim 16 recites “a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from the user during the voice call; b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score- threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes; c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; and e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold.”
The limitations of “a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from the user during the voice call; b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score- threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes; c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; and e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting an “interactive voice response system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “interactive voice response system” language, “a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from a user during the voice-based interaction; b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score- threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes; c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user; e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold; and f. providing the user with a user- interface based on the user rank” can be performed by human mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites an additional element – using a processor to adapt the user interface of the interactive voice response system in the preamble. The processor in this step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of generating graphical elements in the graphical user interface) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer system to perform “adapting the user interface of the interactive voice response system” to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claim 16 is not patent eligible.
Claims 17-24 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 25-29
Independent claim 25 recites “… handling interaction with a user; … storing the user information; … monitoring and speculating the interaction between the user and the dialogue engine (103) to update the user model (105) with any new information; … assigns a user rank to a user based on a first user-score and at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold; and e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold.”
The limitations of “… handling interaction with a user; … storing the user information; … monitoring and speculating the interaction between the user and the dialogue engine (103) to update the user model (105) with any new information; … assigns a user rank to a user based on a first user-score and at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold; and …provides the user with a user-interface based on the user rank”, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting an “interactive voice response system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “interactive voice response system” language, “… handling interaction with a user; … storing the user information; … monitoring and speculating the interaction between the user and the dialogue engine (103) to update the user model (105) with any new information; … assigns a user rank to a user based on a first user-score and at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold; and …provides the user with a user-interface based on the user rank” can be performed by human mental processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recites an additional element – using a processor to adapt the user interface of the interactive voice response system in the preamble. The processor in this step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system performing a generic computer function of generating graphical elements in the graphical user interface) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer system to perform “adapting the user interface of the interactive voice response system” to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Claims 24-29 do not include elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are also rejected under the same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 16-22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Gray et al. (Hereinafter, Gray, US 2015/0220619 A1 ).
Per claim 1,Gray discloses a method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to a user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction (Abstract; paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0016], “… The signal specifies a user interface for the IVR system to be presented to the user based on the identified user type. “ ), the method of adapting the user interface of the interactive voice response system comprising the steps of:
a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from a user during the voice-based interaction (e.g., step 310 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraphs [0071],”At 310, the method 300 includes receiving user information associated with the user. The user information can be received at a host device, such as the system 100, from a user device, such as the user device 112a, that is associated with the user.” ; paragraph [0032], “ …For example, when the device 112b calls into the system 100, the interface module 122 can initially provide an interactive voice recognition (IVR) menu for engaging the user, and then based on the interaction with the user, provide an updated IVR menu during the call to account for the interaction in substantially real-time …. “);
b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes(e.g., step 320 as shown in Fig.1; paragraphs [0055-0056]; paragraph [0072], “At 320, the method 300 includes calculating a classification score. The classification score represents an estimated likelihood that the user belongs to at least one user type from multiple user types…”; paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “);
c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user(paragraph [0057], ”The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…”; paragraph [0061]);
d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user (paragraph[0036]);
e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold(e.g., step 330 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0076], “At 330, the method 300 includes classifying the user as an identified user type based on the classification score. In some embodiments, the classification score is compared to a classification criterion. In some embodiments, the classification score specifies a mapping between one or more values of the classification score and a user type, between one or more range of values of the classification score and/or a user type.”); and
f. providing the user with a user-interface based on the user rank (e.g., step 340 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0078] , “At 340, the method 300 includes transmitting a signal to the user device 112a. The signal specifies a user interface to be presented to the user based on the identified user type. In some embodiments, the signal is generated based on the identified user type, and further based on at least one of the user account information, historical information associated with the user (e.g., as can be provided by the analysis module 130), or historical information associated with a group of users…”; Examiner’s Note: Examiner is interpreting Gray’s classification of users into user types as ranking. ).
Per claim 2, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. associating a range of user-scores to a user rank amongst a plurality of user ranks (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0076], “At 330, the method 300 includes classifying the user as an identified user type based on the classification score. In some embodiments, the classification score is compared to a classification criterion. In some embodiments, the classification score specifies a mapping between one or more values of the classification score and a user type, between one or more range of values of the classification score and/or a user type.”; Claim 26 of Gray), the plurality of user ranks corresponding to different levels of user expertise (paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0057], “The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…. “ ; paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0084], “…The adaptive module 430 tracks the behavior of the user (stored in the user information database 440 as engagement performance) and adapts the engagement to adjust to the user's skill level.. “; paragraph [0086], “…classify the user based on a skill level of the user when using the customer service application 514 …“).
Per claim 3, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. configuring, modifying and adjusting the user interface according to the one of the plurality of user ranks the user is classified to (paragraph [0057], “The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…. “).
Per claim 4, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 3, wherein configuring, modifying and adjusting the user interface according to the user rank includes providing a plurality of services to the user in a step manner wherein the number of steps is dependent on the user's rank (paragraph [0060-0061]; Examiner’s Note: As disclosed in paragraph [0060], a user classified as a new credit card user. Thus, a credit card activation interface is presented as a first option or step to the user.).
Per claim 5, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 4, wherein providing the plurality of services includes providing at least one of: financial transaction management (paragraph [0061]; Examiner’s Note: Gray discloses providing debit services.).
Per claim 6, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first user-score corresponds to at least one of the range of user-scores associated with the plurality of user ranks(e.g., step 330 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0076]).
Per claim 8, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of attributes include at least one of identification information(paragraph [0031]), financial transaction history (paragraph [0035]), product name(paragraph [0037]), quantity, unit, price, payment and information related to other parties.
Per claim 9, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first threshold score and the second threshold score are determined either automatically or set by an administrator (paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “).
Per claim 10, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 9, wherein the first threshold score exceeds the second threshold score(paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “).
Per claim 11, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. classifying the user to an advanced user rank when the first user-score exceeds the first threshold score(paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “; paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0077]).
Per claim 12, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. updating the first user-score associated with the user to a second user-score when the first user-score lies within the first threshold score and the second threshold score (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0097]).
Per claim 13, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. classifying the user to a beginner user rank when the first user-score lies within the first threshold score and the second threshold score(paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “; paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0077]).
Per claim 16, Gray discloses a method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction(Abstract; paragraph [0002]; paragraph [0016], “… The signal specifies a user interface for the IVR system to be presented to the user based on the identified user type. “ ), the method of ranking the user comprising the steps of:
a. receiving information related to a plurality of attributes from the user during the voice call(e.g., step 310 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraphs [0071],”At 310, the method 300 includes receiving user information associated with the user. The user information can be received at a host device, such as the system 100, from a user device, such as the user device 112a, that is associated with the user.” ; paragraph [0032], “ …For example, when the device 112b calls into the system 100, the interface module 122 can initially provide an interactive voice recognition (IVR) menu for engaging the user, and then based on the interaction with the user, provide an updated IVR menu during the call to account for the interaction in substantially real-time …. “);
b. determining at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes(e.g., step 320 as shown in Fig.1; paragraphs [0055-0056]; paragraph [0072], “At 320, the method 300 includes calculating a classification score. The classification score represents an estimated likelihood that the user belongs to at least one user type from multiple user types…”; paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “);
c. analyzing the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user(paragraph [0057], ”The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…”; paragraph [0061]);
d. assigning a first user-score to the user based on the analysis of corresponding information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user(paragraph[0036]); and
e. assigning a user rank to the user based on the first user-score and at least one of the first user-score-threshold and the second user-score-threshold(e.g., step 330 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0076], “At 330, the method 300 includes classifying the user as an identified user type based on the classification score. In some embodiments, the classification score is compared to a classification criterion. In some embodiments, the classification score specifies a mapping between one or more values of the classification score and a user type, between one or more range of values of the classification score and/or a user type.”).
Per claim 17, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, the method of ranking the user further comprising the steps of:
a. associating a range of user-scores to a rank amongst a plurality of user ranks corresponding to different levels of user expertise(paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0057], “The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…. “ ; paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0084], “…The adaptive module 430 tracks the behavior of the user (stored in the user information database 440 as engagement performance) and adapts the engagement to adjust to the user's skill level.. “; paragraph [0086], “…classify the user based on a skill level of the user when using the customer service application 514 …“).
Per claim 18, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, the method of ranking the user further comprising the steps of:
a. configuring, modifying and adjusting the user interface according to the one of the plurality of user ranks the user is classified to(paragraph [0057], “The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…. “).
Per claim 19, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, wherein the first user-score corresponds to at least one of the range of user-scores associated to a rank amongst the plurality of user ranks(e.g., step 330 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0076]).
Per claim 20, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, the method of ranking the user further comprising the steps of:
a. classifying the user to an advanced user rank when the first user-score exceeds the first threshold score(paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “; paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0077]).
Per claim 21, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, the method of ranking the user further comprising the steps of:
a. updating the first user-score associated with the user to a second user-score when the first user-score lies within the first threshold score but exceeds the second threshold score(paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “).
Per claim 22, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, the method of ranking the user further comprising the steps of: a. classifying the user to a beginner user rank when the first user-score does not exceed the second threshold score(paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “; paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0077]).
Per claim 25, Gray discloses a system (100) for adapting an interactive voice response system's user-interface according to a user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction(e.g., call management system 100 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0018]), the system (100) comprising:
a dialogue engine (103) for handling interaction with a user (e.g., user interface module 122 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0030]);
a user model (105) for storing the user information (e.g., account module 124 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0033]);
a user model update component (104) for monitoring and speculating the interaction between the user and the dialogue engine (103) to update the user model (105) with any new information (e.g., analysis module 130 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0057]);
a user rank classifier (106), the user rank classier (106) assigns a user rank to a user based on a first user-score and at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold(e.g., classification module 126 as shown in Fig. 1; paragraph [0095]); and
the dialogue engine (103) provides the user with a user-interface based on the user rank (e.g., step 340 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraph [0078] , “At 340, the method 300 includes transmitting a signal to the user device 112a. The signal specifies a user interface to be presented to the user based on the identified user type. In some embodiments, the signal is generated based on the identified user type, and further based on at least one of the user account information, historical information associated with the user (e.g., as can be provided by the analysis module 130), or historical information associated with a group of users…”; Examiner’s Note: Examiner is interpreting Gray’s classification of users into user types as ranking. ).
Per claim 26, Gray discloses the system (100) of adapting an interactive voice response system's user-interface according to a user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction, as claimed in claim 25, wherein the dialogue engine (103) receives information related to a plurality of attributes from the user during the voice based interaction(e.g., step 310 as shown in Fig. 3; paragraphs [0071],”At 310, the method 300 includes receiving user information associated with the user. The user information can be received at a host device, such as the system 100, from a user device, such as the user device 112a, that is associated with the user.” ; paragraph [0032], “ …For example, when the device 112b calls into the system 100, the interface module 122 can initially provide an interactive voice recognition (IVR) menu for engaging the user, and then based on the interaction with the user, provide an updated IVR menu during the call to account for the interaction in substantially real-time …. “); and the user rank classifier (106) determines at least one of a first user-score-threshold and a second user-score-threshold corresponding to the plurality of attributes(e.g., step 320 as shown in Fig.1; paragraphs [0055-0056]; paragraph [0072], “At 320, the method 300 includes calculating a classification score. The classification score represents an estimated likelihood that the user belongs to at least one user type from multiple user types…”; paragraph [0036], “… In some embodiments, the classification module 126 can assign a classification/confidence score to the user identification, and deem the user as correctly identified when the classification/confidence score meets a predetermined criterion (e.g., is equal to or greater than a minimum threshold). “).
Per claim 27, Gray discloses the system (100) of adapting an interactive voice response system's user-interface according to a user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction, as claimed in claim 25, wherein the user rank classifier (106) is further capable of: associating a range of user-scores to a rank amongst a plurality of user ranks corresponding to different levels of user expertise (paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0057], “The analysis module 130 is operable to track the behavior of the user during the user's interaction with the system 100. In some embodiments, the behavior of the user is indicative of the user's skill level in interacting with the system 100, and can be used to adapt the user interface in substantially real-time to optimize the user's ongoing interaction with the system (by the recommendation module 132, described later)…. “ ; paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0084], “…The adaptive module 430 tracks the behavior of the user (stored in the user information database 440 as engagement performance) and adapts the engagement to adjust to the user's skill level.. “; paragraph [0086], “…classify the user based on a skill level of the user when using the customer service application 514 …“).
Per claim 28, Gray discloses the system (100) of adapting an interactive voice response system's user-interface according to a user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction, as claimed in claim 25, wherein the user model update component (104) is capable of: updating the user model (105) associated with the user based on a recorded voice-based interaction data (paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0097]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (Hereinafter, Gray, US 2015/0220619 A1 ) in view of Cooper et al. (Hereinafter, Cooper, US 2005/0177374 A1 ).
Per claim 7, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of user ranks include at least one of a beginner, an intermediate, and an expert.
Cooper discloses wherein the plurality of user ranks include at least one of a beginner, an intermediate, and an expert (Abstract; paragraph [0006]; paragraph [0017]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the context and experience sensitive prompting of Cooper with Gray’s communication flow device for determining the experience level of a user for various stages of an application and for providing prompts that take into account the particular user's level of experience or ability to successfully work with the stage of the application being used as suggested by Cooper (paragraph [0006]).
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (Hereinafter, Gray, US 2015/0220619 A1 ) in view of Raneri et al. (Hereinafter, Raneri, US 2020/0074100 A1).
Per claim 14, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. verifying the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user when the first user-score exceeds the second threshold score and lies within the first threshold score; and
b. decrementing the first user-score associated with the user for each incorrect
information.
Raneri discloses wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. verifying the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user when the first user-score exceeds the second threshold score and lies within the first threshold score(e.g., block 466 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0076]; paragraphs [0113-0114]; paragraph [0117]; paragraph [0141]; paragraph [0179]; Examiner’s Note: Raneri )discloses verifying a user’s credit file information); and
b. decrementing the first user-score associated with the user for each incorrect
information(paragraph [0034], “ In one embodiment, the possible risk score changes indicates an estimated risk score. In one embodiment, the possible risk score changes indicates an estimated risk score increase or decrease ... “; paragraph [0169]; paragraph [0180]; paragraph [0181]; paragraph [0183]; paragraphs [0191-0192]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the change estimation of Raneri with Gray’s communication flow device for making it easier to provide updates or changes to records as suggested by Raneri (paragraph [0002]).
Per claim 23, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, but does not expressly disclose wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. verifying the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user when the first user-score exceeds the second threshold score and lies within the first threshold score; and
b. decrementing the first user-score associated with the user for each incorrect information.
Raneri discloses wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. verifying the information related to the plurality of attributes received from the user when the first user-score exceeds the second threshold score and lies within the first threshold score (e.g., block 466 as shown in Fig. 4; paragraph [0076]; paragraphs [0113-0114]; paragraph [0117]; paragraph [0141]; paragraph [0179]; Examiner’s Note: Raneri )discloses verifying a user’s credit file information); and
b. decrementing the first user-score associated with the user for each incorrect information (paragraph [0034], “ In one embodiment, the possible risk score changes indicates an estimated risk score. In one embodiment, the possible risk score changes indicates an estimated risk score increase or decrease ... “; paragraph [0169]; paragraph [0180]; paragraph [0181]; paragraph [0183]; paragraphs [0191-0192]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the change estimation of Raneri with Gray’s communication flow device for making it easier to provide updates or changes to records as suggested by Raneri (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 15, 24 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray et al. (Hereinafter, Gray, US 2015/0220619 A1 ) in view of Semichev et al. (Hereinafter, Semichev, US 10,572,653 B1).
Per claim 15, Gray discloses the method of adapting user-interface of an interactive voice response system according to the user expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. updating the user model associated with the user based on data corresponding to frequency of visits, usage, recorded voice-based interaction data, behavioral data; and
b. updating the user model associated with the user based on the user rank.
Semichev discloses wherein the method of adapting the interactive voice response system's user-interface further comprising the steps of:
a. updating the user model associated with the user based on data corresponding to frequency of visits, usage, recorded voice-based interaction data, behavioral data( Abstract; column 8, lines 56-63); and
b. updating the user model associated with the user based on the user rank(column 8, lines 56-63).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the authentication process of Semichev with Gray’s communication flow device for facilitating communication and/or resource-sharing, via one or more specifically programmed graphical user interfaces (GUIs) as suggested by Semichev column 1, lines 31-37).
Per claim 24, Gray discloses the method of ranking a user of an interactive voice response system according to the user's expertise as claimed in claim 16, but does not expressly disclose the method of ranking the user as further comprising the steps of:
a. updating the user model associated with the user based on frequency of visits, usage, recorded voice-based interaction data, behavioral data and interaction; and
b. updating the user model associated with the user based on the user rank.
Semichev discloses the method of ranking the user as further comprising the steps of:
a. updating the user model associated with the user based on data corresponding to frequency of visits, usage, recorded voice-based interaction data, behavioral data( Abstract; column 8, lines 56-63); and
b. updating the user model associated with the user based on the user rank (column 8, lines 56-63).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the authentication process of Semichev with Gray’s communication flow device for facilitating communication and/or resource-sharing, via one or more specifically programmed graphical user interfaces (GUIs) as suggested by Semichev column 1, lines 31-37).
Per claim 29, Gray discloses the system (100) of adapting an interactive voice response system's user-interface according to a user's expertise corresponding to a voice-based interaction 1, as claimed in claim but does not expressly disclose 25, but does not expressly disclose wherein the user model update component (104) is capable of: updating the user model (105) associated with the user based on frequency of visits, usage, recorded voice based interaction data, behavioral data and interaction; and updating the user model (105) associated with the user based on the user rank.
Semichev discloses wherein the user model update component (104) is capable of: updating the user model (105) associated with the user based on frequency of visits, usage, recorded voice based interaction data, behavioral data and interaction( Abstract; column 8, lines 56-63); and updating the user model (105) associated with the user based on the user rank(column 8, lines 56-63).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the authentication process of Semichev with Gray’s communication flow device for facilitating communication and/or resource-sharing, via one or more specifically programmed graphical user interfaces (GUIs) as suggested by Semichev column 1, lines 31-37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN HOPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thr - 6:45-4:15, Fri - 6:45-3:15, Alt. Fri Off.
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, Stephen S Hong can be reached at (571)272-4124. 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.
DARRIN HOPE
Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178