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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues on page 7 that neither Palawat nor Rathod teach or suggest “a call wrap pattern database comprising a plurality of speech patterns indicative of a call ending”. It is because, the referenced paragraphs of Rathod merely report a "termination indication" which appears to consist of a user pressing an "end" button on the interface.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. It is because, the applicant did not define what is the claimed “call wrap pattern database” in the claim. Instead, the applicant claims “a call wrap pattern database comprising a plurality of speech patterns indicative of a call ending". Rathod teaches this limitation (see paragraphs 0026, 0422, 0528). In paragraph 0528, Rathod teaches that database 115 receives indication or status of Call acceptance or rejection or missing from called user(s) with Calling & Called User's IDs and prepares data and push said data to said Calling Party device or device database 4627. If Called Party accepts call then close outgoing call interface and calling user or caller is presented with database(s) with “Call End Button” 4631, wherein “end” button on said presented interface enables calling user to end said call. Since, the database used here for ending the call, the database is the claimed “call wrap pattern database”.
Thus, the rejection of the claim will remain. The rejection of the claim 13 will remain for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-11, 13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palawat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0085872) in view of Rathod (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0309801).
Regarding claims 1, 13, with respect to Figures 1-6, Palawat teaches a computerized method for managing customer callbacks, the method comprising:
storing, in a non-transitory memory in communication with a processor (paragraph 0012):
a callback schedule database of pending callbacks, each pending callback comprising a callback number, customer information, scheduled callback request [i.e., calling intent], a required agent skill, and a scheduled callback time and timestamp (abstract; fig.1, 3-6; paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0033, 0034);
an agent database of available agents, each available agent entry comprising an agent identifier and an agent skill (fig.3-6; paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0024, 0026, 0033, 0034); and
monitoring, by the processor, a customer call between a first customer and an agent, to identify a preset call wrap pattern from the call wrap pattern database (fig.1, 3-6; paragraphs 0010, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0035);
upon identifying the preset call wrap pattern: searching, by the processor, the callback schedule database for a pending callback having a scheduled callback time earlier than a current timestamp in the database (fig.1, 3-6; paragraphs 0010, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036);
comparing, by the processor, the required agent skill for the pending callback having the scheduled callback time earlier than the current timestamp with the agent skill of the agent on the monitored customer call to determine agent suitability for the pending callback (fig.1, 3-6; paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036); and
when the agent on the monitored customer call is determined suitable for the pending callback having the scheduled callback time earlier than the current timestamp, automatically initiating an outgoing call to the callback number of the pending callback having the scheduled callback time earlier than the current timestamp (fig.1, 3-6; paragraphs 0010, 0018, 0020, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036).
However, Palawat does not specifically teach a call wrap pattern database comprising a plurality of speech patterns indicative of a call ending. Rathod teaches a call wrap pattern database comprising a plurality of speech patterns indicative of a call ending (abstract; paragraphs 0026, 0422, 0528). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palawat to incorporate the feature of a call wrap pattern database comprising a plurality of speech patterns indicative of a call ending in Palawat’s invention as taught by Rathod. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide information about the ending call such that the user can have a nice status of an incoming call.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Palawat teaches wherein the preset call wrap pattern comprises one or more of, a word from the first customer, a word from the agent, a pattern of words from the customer, a pattern of words from the agent, a pattern of words between the customer and agent, a voice attribute of the customer, and a voice attribute of the agent (paragraphs 0010, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036).
.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Palawat teaches wherein the voice attribute of the customer or the voice attribute of the agent comprises one or more of speed, volume, timbre, tone, or changes therein (paragraphs 0010, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Palawat teaches when the agent on the monitored customer call is determined not suitable for the pending callback having the scheduled callback time earlier than the current timestamp, selecting the next pending callback having the scheduled callback time earlier than the current timestamp from callback schedule and repeating the comparing step (fig.3-6; paragraphs 0010, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Palawat teaches wherein the outgoing call is initiated before the customer call between the first customer and the agent has ended (paragraphs 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0035).
Regarding claim 9, Palawat teaches wherein the outgoing call is initiated at a selected interval after the preset call wrap pattern is identified (paragraphs 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0036).
Regarding claim 10, Palawat teaches wherein the call wrap pattern database comprises an estimated time to call end for each call wrap pattern, wherein the selected interval is based on the estimated time to call end for the identified preset call wrap pattern (paragraphs 0014, 0023, 0024).
Regarding claim 11, Palawat teaches upon initiated the outgoing call, waiting for an answer and automatically placing the answered call into a que for the agent on the monitored customer call (paragraphs 0012, 0018, 0024, 0026, 030, 0033-0035).
Claims 2-4, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palawat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0085872) in view of Rathod (U.S. Pub. No. 20180309801) further in view of Fotta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0097343).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Palawat teaches analyzing a plurality of customer calls to identify a call wrap pattern and adding the call wrap pattern to the call wrap pattern database as a preset call wrap pattern (fig.3-6; paragraphs 0018, 0028-0029).
However, Palawat in view of Rathod does not specifically teach analyzing a plurality of customer calls to identify a call wrap pattern and adding the call wrap pattern to the call wrap pattern database as a preset call wrap pattern. Fotta teaches analyzing a plurality of customer calls to identify a call wrap pattern and adding the call wrap pattern to the call wrap pattern database as a preset call wrap pattern (fig.2A; paragraphs 0001, 0041, 0043, 0047, 0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palawat in view of Rathod to incorporate the feature of analyzing a plurality of customer calls to identify a call wrap pattern and adding the call wrap pattern to the call wrap pattern database as a preset call wrap pattern in Palawat’s invention in view of Rathod’s invention in order to have positive impact efficiently.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Palawat teaches that the agent device selection may also be based on the agent device capabilities of the active agent devices (paragraphs 0018, 0027, 0028). However, Palawat in view of Rathod does not specifically teach wherein analyzing the plurality of customer calls consists of analyzing a selected portion of the plurality of customer calls before each of the plurality of customer calls was ended by a respective customer. Examiner takes an official notice that analyzing a plurality of customer calls to identify a call wrap pattern and adding the call wrap pattern to the call wrap pattern database as a preset call wrap pattern is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palawat in view of Rathod to incorporate the feature of analyzing a plurality of customer calls to identify a call wrap pattern and adding the call wrap pattern to the call wrap pattern database as a preset call wrap pattern in Palawat’s invention in view of Rathod’s invention in order to receive benefit out of analysis efficiently.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Palawat in view of Rathod does not specifically teach wherein the selected portion consists of 30 seconds or less. Examiner takes an official notice wherein the selected portion consists of 30 seconds or less is a matter design choice. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palawat in view of Rathod to incorporate the feature of wherein the selected portion consists of 30 seconds or less in Palawat’s invention in view of Rathod’s invention in order to receive benefit out of a particular time period efficiently.
Regarding claim 12, Palawat teaches wherein monitoring the customer call (paragraphs 0010-0012, 0020, 0028-0030, 0036).
However, Palawat in view of Rathod does not specifically teach generating a transcript of the customer call in real time and comparing each word or phrase in the transcript against each speech pattern in the call wrap pattern database. Fotta teaches generating a transcript of the customer call in real time and comparing each word or phrase in the transcript against each speech pattern in the call wrap pattern database (paragraphs 0004, 0041-0044, 0050, 0063). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palawat in view of Rathod to incorporate the feature of generating a transcript of the customer call in real time and comparing each word or phrase in the transcript against each speech pattern in the call wrap pattern database in Palawat’s invention in view of Rathod’s invention in order to listen and read the content efficiently.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
June 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights