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 Amendment
1. This in response to amendment filed 09/03/2025. No claims have been added. Claims 1-2 and 6-5, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, 19-20 and 22 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-22 are still pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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.
Claims 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erhart et al. (Pub. No.: 2021/0029249 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Erhart teaches a method (abstract), server (see [0094]) and non-transitory computer-readable medium (see [0048]-[0049]) comprising:
determining, by a contact center server, for one or more customer messages received as part of one or more contact center interactions (reads on new customer message 312, see [0116]), one or more changes between one or more automated response recommendations provided to one or more human (see [0005]) agent devices (reads on agent devices 230-1-230M, see Fig. 2) and one or more human agent responses provided to one or more customer devices (reads on user devices 240-1-240-N, see Fig.2); and
automatically modifying, by the contact center server, execution logic of one or more-use cases of the one or more customer messages based on the determining (reads on the chatbot engine 148 may, with a degree of certainty, determine that the newly received customer message 312 is assigned a new topic classification than the previously received customer message 312 and an appropriate agent response 316 may be generated, see [0116]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Erhart teaches providing, by the contact center server, a notification of the modification of the execution logic to one or more enterprise user devices (reads on human agent 172 is required to approve or edit the message prior to being transmitted/committed to the communication channel and delivered to the customer communication device 112, see [0094]); and
receiving, by the contact center server, an approval of the modification of the execution logic (reads on human agent 172 approval, see [0094]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Erhart teaches wherein the one or more automated response recommendations comprise: one or more message prompts configured in the execution logic of the one or more-use cases ((see [0116] and [0117]), or one or more content snippets retrieved by executing one or more web requests configured in the execution logic of the one or more-use cases (see [0091]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Erhart teaches wherein the one or more automated response recommendations are generated by executing the execution logic of the one or more-use cases (see [0116] and [0117]. In addition, see for example, Figs. 3A and 4A).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Erhart teaches wherein the one or more changes comprise addition, deletion, or the modification of one or more-use cases one or more entities (see [0116]), or one or more entity values.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Erhart teaches wherein the one or more changes are determined using a classification model (see [0036]) or by a textual comparison of each of the one or more automated response recommendations with the corresponding one of the one or more human agent responses (see [0043]).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, Erhart teaches wherein the modification of the execution logic comprises modifying a functional flow of the execution logic (see Fig.5 and [0136]-[0137]).
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's main argument filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“However, nowhere is Erhart teaching or suggesting any determination of when there are changes that have occurred or, in particular, determining when there are one or more changes between the chatbot generated proposed agent response and the corresponding response committed to the customer chat communication channel. Asa result, Erhart only teaches that edits or changes can be entered by the human agent, but does not describe or suggest determining when there are one or more changes between one or more automated response recommendations provided to one or more human agent devices and one or more human agent responses provided to one or more customer devices as recited in the above-identified claim limitations”.
Note that Erhart teaches an A2P messages represent outbound messages initiated from a contact center that are directed to a customer. Examples of A2P messages include, without limitation: A) We received your completed application . . . your mortgage application is being reviewed; B) There is a severe weather condition so your flight is delayed; C) I see that you are traveling next week to NYC . . . are you interested in tickets to Hamilton?; etc. It should be appreciated that A2P messages may or may not be related to the previous messages and may be packaged accordingly and seamlessly into a conversation with a customer. It should be appreciated that the A2P messages could represent a change of topic initiated by the contact center. The response from the customer may or may not take up the conversation change. If not taken up, the customer can still either resume a prior topic or initiate a new topic that is neither the prior topic nor the topic initiated by the A2P message (see [0010]). Erhart also teaches it is possible to enable the system to determine a likelihood of a conversation resuming at some point in the future either completely autonomously or with the assistance of a human agent. For instance, content modeling can be used to determine the likelihood that a conversation has completed. A topic confidence score analyzes the data to determine if there is an intent to remain in the current context and/or topic; begin or move to a related context and/or topic; or to begin and move to a different context and/or topic altogether. Using historical data of communication patterns with this customer along with customer relationship management information (information from schedules, demographics, likes and dislikes, known emotional and attitudinal attributes, and previous experience with the call center) assists in the modeling of whether or not this customer is likely available to engage in a conversation, or they are likely to not be available and will disengage from this conversation (see [0011]-[0015, [0109], [0116], [0118]-[0119], [0128], [0131] and [0133]]).
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth
In 37 CFR 1.136(a).
shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of
this final. action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
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).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights