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 an amendment filed 04/01/2026. No claims have been added. Claim 1, 8 and 15 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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, 3-4, 6-9, 11-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandgren et al. (Pub.No.: 2017/0099323 A1) in view of Deole et al. (Pub.No.: 2020/0045175 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Sandgren teaches a method, system and non-transitory computer readable media, performed by a survivability server (reads on backup B2BUA 122N, see [0037]) associated with a contact center service (see Figs. 2 and 3 and [0030]- [0031] and [0049]), comprising:
receiving, from a central server associated with the contact center service, queue-related data (the backup B2BUA 122N associated with the contact center, see [0028]- [0038]);
receiving a request to connect an end user to the contact center service (Note that queues 224 maybe contact center queue for holding calls that are waiting to be connected/serviced by contact center agent [0030]-[0031]), the request to connect received based on the central server becoming unavailable to provide the contact center service (see [0004-0005] and [0039--0041]); and
placing the end user at the queue position in a queue constituted by the survivability server ((Fig.3 and [0030]-[0031].Note that queues 224 maybe contact center queue for holding calls that are waiting to be connected/serviced by contact center agent).
Sandgren features are already addressed in the above rejections for claims 1, 8 and 15, Sandgren does not specifically teach “identifying, based on the queue-related data, a queue position of the end user” and “the queue-related data including information about queue positions of end users queued in a queue at the central server providing the contact center service”.
However, Deole teaches maintaining contacts in associated wait queues and maintaining/repositioning contacts according to queue positions (see [0010], [0015], [0044], [0046] and [0063]). Deole further teaches that contacts remain in current queue positions, may be repositioned within wait queues, and maybe associated with respective wait queues, thereby teaching queue-related information including queue positions of users in a contact center queue (see [0010], [0015], [0044], [0046] and [0063]).
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 queue position management techniques of Deole into the failover architecture of Sandgren in order to preserve queue ordering information when are transferred from a failed primary server to a backup server. Doing so would have been enabled the backup server to continue processing queued users according to their established queue positions, thereby improving service continuity and minimizing interruption to contact center operations during server failover.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches:
receiving a request to connect another end user to the contact center service (see Sandgren [0032] and [0041]-[0042]);
determining that the queue-related data does not include data related to the another end user (see Sandgren [0032] and [0041]- [0042]); and
in response to determining that the queue-related data does not include data related to the another end user, placing the another end user at a tail of the queue (Note that the sequenced applications 122A-122N, the IVR system 223, the queue (s) 224, and are stores program entities, see Sandgren [0032] and [0041]- [0042]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches
determining, based on the queue-related data, a priority level associated with the end user (Deole teaches preferred contact selection based on EWT. Priority/high-level customer’s, preferred interactions, see [0052-0057], [0060] and [0070-0072]); and
adjusting a position of the end user in the queue based on the priority level (note that in Deole preferred contact maintained in queue position while other contacts are repositioned to bottom positions or allowed to proceed based on priority, see [0044], [0056], [0063] and [0071-72]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches identifying the queue from amongst multiple queues based on the queue-related data (reads on multiple queues 224, see Sandgren [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches analyzing the queue-related data to predict wait times (Deole repeatedly uses expected wait time, ranks interactions according to queue length/EWT, and determines preferred interactions based on EWT, see [0052-0054], [0057] and [0070]); and informing the end user of an estimated wait time from the predicted wait times (Deole teaches providing the customer expected EWT for interactions, see [0055], customer inquiry/notification regarding preferred contact see [0043] and customer being informed of multiple contacts and preferred contact selection, see [0062]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the instructions to place the end user at the queue position in the queue constituted by the survivability server comprises to:
place the end user at the queue position in the queue that is ahead of another position of another end user in response to the queue-related data not including data related to the another end user (Sandgren teaches the queues 224 may be contact center queues 224 for holding call that are waiting to be serviced by a contact center agent. The queue 224 may be the communication device 101 that is involved in the communication session, see [0029]- [0032]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the instructions to receive the request to connect the end user to the contact center service comprises instructions to:
initiate an outbound call to the end user in response to determining that the central server is unavailable (Sandgren teaches contacting the customer on another channel without specifying that being an outbound call [0055], however utilizing voice channel to call the customer in the event of failover is obvious within the teaching of Sandgren).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein a position of the end user in the queue is based on whether the queue-related data indicates that the end user is associated with prioritized routing (when a communication message from the communication device 101A is received by the session manager 120 (e.g., a SIP INVITE), the session manager 120 routes the message to the sequenced application 122. The sequenced application 122 then routes the message back to the session manager 120. The session manager 120 in turn sends the message to the communication device 101N, see [0024] and [0030]- [0032] of Sandgren).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the survivability server receives updates to the queue-related data from the central server (Sandgren teaches receiving queue-related data from central server for use by survivability server [0023], [0029-0031] and [0039-0049] and Deole traches maintaining and updating contact-center queue information and records, see [0037] and [0079]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the survivability server periodically receives updates to the queue-related data from the central Server (see Sandgren [0004-0005], [0029-0031] and [0039-0049] and Deole [0079]).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from the central server, updates to the queue-related data (see Sandgren [0023] , [0029-0031] and [0039-0049] and Deole [0079]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to determining that the central server is available again, notifying the end user to reconnect to the contact center service (reads on the reestablishment 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]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
in response to determining that the central server is available again, notifying the end user that a current connection with the contact center service will terminate and that the end user will receive a connection request from the contact center service (note that termination will take place some point, but with a reestablishment of the session of course after the end user device will receive the Temporary unavailable message, see Sandgren [0039]- [0044]).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandgren et al. (Pub.No.: 2017/0099323 A1) in view of Deole et al. (Pub.No.: 2020/0045175 A1) and further in view of Deshpande (Pub.No.: 2012/0027194 A1).
Claim 2 recites “wherein placing the end user at the queue position in the queue constituted by the survivability server comprises: determining, based on the queue-related data, that the end user is associated with priority routing; and placing the end user at a front of the queue”.
The combination of Sandgren and Deole teaches placing an end user at a queue position in a queue constituted by a survivability server. In particular, Sandgren teaches a failover architecture in which a backup server assumes operation when a primary server becomes unavailable and maintains communication sessions and queues (see Fig. 2 and [0029-0031] and [0039-0040]).
Deole teaches queue-related data including queue positions of contacts in associated wait queues, maintaining contacts in current queue positions, and repositioning contacts within wait queues (see [0010], [0015], [0044], [0046] and [0063]).
However, Deshpande teaches that contacts are prioritized and either are enqueued in individual ones of the contact queues 208a-n in their respective orders of priority or are enqueued in different ones of a plurality of contact queues that correspond to a different priority, see [0041]. Deshpande further teaches advancing or positioning contacts within queues based on priority criteria, including allowing contacts to move ahead of other contacts in a queue based on various factors (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 modify the survivability and queue management system of Sandgren and Deole with the priority routing techniques of Deshpande in order to ensure that high-priority users retain appropriate service precedence following failover to a survivability server. Doing so would have predictably improved contact center performance by preserving priority-based queue treatment during failover conditions and ensuring that higher-priority contacts receive expedited handling.
Claim 5 recites “wherein receiving the request to connect the end user to the contact center service comprises: identifying contact information associated with the end user; initiating a connection request with the end user based on the contact information; and in response to connecting with the end user, determining that the request to connect the end user to the contact center service is received”.
Sandgren as modified by Deole, teach queue management and survivability as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15. However, Sandgren and Deole do not specifically teach “receiving the request to connect the end user to the contact center service comprises: identifying contact information associated with the end user; initiating a connection request with the end user based on the contact information; and in response to connecting with the end user, determining that the request to connect the end user to the contact center service is received” as recited in claim 5.
Deshpande teaches identifying contact information associated with a customer and initiating communications with the customer based on such information (see [0043]) and determining, in response to the customer interaction, that the customer wishes to processed with the selected contact (see Deshpande [0053]).
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 customer contact and interaction techniques of Deshpande into the survivability environment of Sandgren and Deole in order to facilitate re-establishing customer communications and obtaining customer connection requests in a reliable and automated manner.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: log data related to the queue position and a wait time; and
determine that the central server is available; and transmit the logged data to the central server when the central server is determined to be available again”.
Sandgren as modified by Deole, teach queue management and survivability as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15. However, Sandgren and Deole do not specifically teach “wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions stored in the one or more memories to: log data related to the queue position and a wait time; and determine that the central server is available; and transmit the logged data to the central server when the central server is determined to be available again” as recited in claim 10.
Deshpande teaches maintaining and storing contact-related data and updating centralized records (see [0089]).
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 data logging and record updating techniques of Deshpande into the survivability architecture of Sandgren and Deole in order to preserve queue information during service interruptions and synchronize such information when normal operations resume.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the end user is notified of their queue position through an automated message”.
Sandgren as modified by Deole, teach queue management and survivability as discussed above in the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15. However, Sandgren and Deole do not specifically teach “wherein the end user is notified of their queue position through an automated message”.
Deshpande teaches notifying a contact regarding queue status and estimated wait time via an automated message, such as an SMS message (see [0059] and [0064]).
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 system of Sandgren in view of Deole to provide automated queue-position notifications as taught by Deshpande in order to keep users informed of their queue status and expected service availability while awaiting connection to the contact center service.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments for independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 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