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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
3. This communication is in response to an RCE amendment filed 08/10/2026. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-21 are now pending in this application.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
None of the prior arts applied teach or suggest “wherein the second workflow is a reduced capability workflow that omits at least one integration step available to the first workflow, and wherein the step of the second workflow at which to begin is advanced past the at least one omitted integration step”.
For Example, Southwick et al. (US PAT # 12,368,804 B1) teaches operation of primary and backup platforms and switching to a backup platform when problems occur with the primary platform (see col. 6, lines 5-47).
Other prior arts of record teaches skipping or omitting particular operations under certain conditions such as Kim et al (Pub.No.: 2017/0322796 A1) see [0108], Edrington et al. (Pub.No.: 2006/0020778 A1) see ([0028]-[0031]), Mikkelsen et al. (Pub.No.: 2007/0006202 A1) see ([0017]) and Joshi et al. (Pub.No.: 2014/0096121 A1) see ([0005]), however, the prior arts of record does not teach or suggest “wherein the second workflow is a reduced capability workflow that omits at least one integration step available to the first workflow, and wherein the step of the second workflow at which to begin is advanced past the at least one omitted integration step”, as recited in claim 21, in combination with the limitations of claim 1 from which claim 21 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-12, 15, 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (Pub.No.: 2015/0006741 A1) in view of Schulz et al. (Pub.No.: 2004/0083448 A1) and further in view of Hoys et al. (Pub.No.: 2007/0288365 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Narayanan teaches a method, system one or more non-transitory computer readable media performed by a survivability server associated with a contact center service, comprising:
receiving, from a central server (reads on primary server 104, see Fig. 1 and [0036]) associated with the contact center service (reads on session plane 112, see [0036]-[0037]), data associated with a first workflow executed by the central server with respect to an end user (reads on the primary server 104 function as the active server for end point 116 (i.e., user) whose involved in a communication session with another user, where the primary server 104 may maintain state information and dialog information for the communication session, see [0036] and [0044] and Fig. 1), a device of the end user (reads on end user 116 , see Fig. 1 and [0037]-[0038]) being connected to the contact center service via the central server (see Fig. 1);
determining that the central server is unavailable (reads on the communication between primary server 104 and end user 116 fail, see [0049]); and
in response to determining that the central server is unavailable (reads on detecting the failure of the primary server 104 detected by the session plane 112, see [0050]),
identifying, based on the data, a second workflow to execute by the survivability
server (reads on step 612 as shown in Fig. 6 and corresponding text); and
executing the second workflow with respect to the end user (reads on survivable server 108 taking over the communication session, see [0049]).
Regarding the claimed “one or more memories” and “one or more processors” as recited in independent claim 8 reads on memory (as discussed in [0025] and [0053]) and processor (as discussed in [0025] and [0077]).
Narayanan features already addressed in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. Narayanan does not specifically teach “continuously transmitted by the central server to the survivability server” and “the data and a mapping that associates a location within a second workflow with a location within the first workflow”.
However, Schulz teaches maintain relationships between workflow view tasks and corresponding workflow tasks. For example, Schulz teaches that “workflow view task n corresponds to workflow view task l1 330, then the corresponding workflow tasks are workflow task K1 310 and k2 312” (see [0390]). Further Schulz teaches “maintaining an awareness of relationships between workflow view tasks and their corresponding workflow tasks (see [0378]) and teaches alerting the state of a corresponding workflow view task accordingly (see [0379]). In other words, Schulz teaches identifying a corresponding task or location in another workflow and maintaining synchronization between the corresponding workflow entities. Schulz further discloses monitoring execution states of workflows and workflow views and maintaining synchronization between corresponding workflow entities. For example, Schulz teaches a monitor that tracks execution of private workflows, workflow views, and coalition workflows (see [0105]), a monitor capable of tracking workflows and workflow view layers (see [0112]), and maintaining awareness relationships between workflow view tasks and corresponding workflow tasks (see [0378]), also when a workflow task changes state, the corresponding workflow view task is notified and evaluates whether its state should also change (see [0381-0382]).Therefore, Schulz teaches continuously monitoring execution states of corresponding workflow entities and maintaining synchronization therebetween.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the correspondence and monitoring techniques of Schulz in teaching of Narayanan in order to maintain synchronization between related workflow executions, accurately track execution progress across corresponding workflow locations, and ensure consistent workflow state management across multiple workflows, as expressly taught by Schulz (see [0374], [0378], [0379] and [0403]).
Narayanan and Schulz do not explicitly teach “identifying, based on the data, a last completed step of the first workflow; identifying, based on the last completed step and the mapping, a step of the second workflow at which to begin; and executing the second workflow with respect to the end user by advancing the second workflow to the identified step”.
However, Hoyos teaches a state machine that tracks completed subtasks using stored completion-state data and a state-progress identifier. Upon failure, the store information identifies the last successfully completed subtask. Upon resumption, the system retrieves that stored state information and continues execution so as not to duplicate previously completed subtasks (see abstract).
Note that Schuls teaches the mapping between corresponding workflow locations. Hoyos teaches identifying the last successfully completed step and resuming execution based on stored progress following failure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Hoyos’s recovery technique to Narayanan as modified by Schulz to identify the last completed step, and using Schulz’s mapping, determine the corresponding step of the second workflow at which execution resumes.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches presenting at least some of the data at an agent device (endpoint 116, see Narayanan [0047]) connected to the survivability server (see Narayanan [0047]- [0059]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches wherein determining that the central server is unavailable comprises:
detecting an absence of heartbeat signals from the central server for a predefined period of time (see Narayanan [0063]- [0064] and Narayanan [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos features already addressed in the above rejection. Narayanan does not specifically teach “detecting a failure to receive responses to ping requests from the central server”. However, Narayanan teaches if the session plane 112 routes messages during a communication session to the primary server 104 and then the primary server 104 is no longer reachable, then the session plane 112 will re-route the message to the survivable server 108 (step 612) (see Narayanan [0064]). Narayanan also teaches health monitoring can be done either by administration or by automatic learning (e.g., execution of an OPTIONs method). During the health monitoring phase, the entities in the route chain can quickly become aware of failover groups and can route to alternate entities within the failover group (see Narayanan [0063]). The proxy which continues to perform heartbeat with FS2 realizes the failure has occurred and now is ready to send the next request for FS2 to FS2.1 (e.g., because FS2.1 is in an alternate failover group, which can be statically administered or dynamically learned). FS2.1 may be discovered in response to a message/heartbeat that indicates which is the alternate server for FS2 for both new and existing calls (see Narayanan [0071]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Narayanan to include well known feature that help assess the failure of a server such as Ping requests along with the heartbeat and the health monitoring.
For claims 10 and 17, Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos features already addressed in the above rejection. Narayanan does not specifically teach “determine that the central server is available again; and transmit data to the central server related to end users queued at the survivability server”.
Note that in Narayanan all changes that takes place in servers are determined by session plane 112 (see Narayanan [0057]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine if the primary server become available or not, such a modification feasible since the system of Narayanan allows monitoring, capturing and saving all data.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches wherein determining that the central server is unavailable comprises:
receiving a message from the central server indicating that the central server is unavailable (see Narayanan [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches placing the end user in a queue based on data obtained from the end user by the second workflow (reads on placing the call into reconstruction pending state, see Narayanan [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
place the end user in a queue based on the data (reads on placing the call into reconstruction pending state, see Narayanan [0059]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
transmit a notification to a device of the end user indicating the unavailability of the central server (see Narayanan [0058]).
Regrading claim 12, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches wherein the one or more processors further configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to:
initiate an outbound call to a device of the end user (see Narayanan [0010]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos teaches wherein the data comprises data obtained from the end user via the first workflow (reads on data captured and registered from the original communication session held with the primary server 104, see Narayanan [0045] and Narayanan [0057]).
6. Claim(s) 13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (Pub.No.: 2015/0006741 A1) in view of Schulz et al. (Pub.No.: 2004/0083448 A1) in view of Hoys et al. (Pub.No.: 2007/0288365 A1) and further in view of Sandgren et al. (Pub.No.: 2017/0099323 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos features already addressed in the above rejection. The combination of references does not specifically “transmit a notification to another end user queued at the survivability server indicating that another end user is to be recontacted based on the central server becoming available again”.
However, Sandgren teaches re-establishment of the communication session, the backup B2BUA 122N sends the SIP INVITE with Replaces Header in steps 316 and 318 to initiate the process of reestablishing the communication session between the communication devices 101A and 101N. The communication session is then reestablished in step 320. The media stream is of step 302 is dropped and then reestablished in step 322, see Sandgren [0048].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inform users who got dropped at the failed server to be reconnected, as taught by Sandgren, into the teaching of Narayanan in view of Schuls and Hoyos, specifically to the endpoint user 116, in order to continue the communication session where active calls of Narayanan took place originally, such a modification will provide speed and convenience to users.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons addressed in claim 13.
7. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayanan (Pub.No.: 2015/0006741 A1) in view of Schulz et al. (Pub.No.: 2004/0083448 A1) in view of Hoys et al. (Pub.No.: 2007/0288365 A1) and further in view of Deshpande (Pub.No.: 2012/0027194 A1).
For claim 14, Narayanan, Schulz and Hoyos features are already addressed in the above rejection. The combination of references does not specifically “place the end user in a queue at a first position that is based on a second position of the end user at the central server”.
Deshpande allows the customer jumping in queue for several factors, not limited only to priority level, see [0068], [0071], [0076] and [0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of jumping the customer in queue, as taught by Deshpande, into the teaching of Narayanan in view of Schulz and Hoyos, to provide priority treatment to users based on their priority, importance/urgency of their requests and other factors.
Conclusion
8. 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