FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed on 8-26-2026 with respect to claims 23-42 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 and 102 rejection(s) regarding the claims cited in the last, office action have been withdrawn. However, the double patenting rejection(s) cited in the last, office action are maintained. Please see all rejection(s) below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 23-42 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over: claims 1-22 of US Patent No. 12,034,883.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited patent mentioned above discloses: ‘… a database, the database configured to store a baseline script associated with a client of a call-center; an analytics engine communicatively coupled to the database, the analytics engine comprising an artificial intelligence model, wherein the analytics engine is configured to: use natural language processing on the baseline script to create input variables for the artificial intelligence model; and propose one or more changes to the baseline script according to a predefined variable...’ along with the other limitations of claim 23 in the instant application;
‘…storing a baseline script associated with a client of a call-center; providing the stored baseline script to an analytics engine, the analytics engine comprising an artificial intelligence model; using natural language processing on the baseline script to create input variables for the artificial intelligence model; and proposing, by the analytics engine, one or more changes to the baseline script based on a predefined variable…’ along with the other limitations of claim 30 in the instant application; and
‘…store a baseline script associated with a client of a call-center; use natural language processing on the baseline script to create input variables for an artificial intelligence model; and propose one or more changes to the baseline script according to a predefined variable using an analytics engine, wherein the analytics engine comprises the artificial intelligence model…’ along with the other limitations of claim 37 in the instant application.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 15, and 21 in US Patent No. 12,034,883 disclose the claimed invention in the pending independent claims:
Claim 1: A system, comprising: a database, the database configured to store a plurality of baseline scripts, each of the plurality of baseline scripts associated with a client of a call-center and comprising a plurality of questions for guiding a communication session between an agent and a party, wherein the plurality of baseline scripts comprises a first baseline script associated with a first client; an applications server communicatively coupled to the database and an analytics engine, wherein: the applications server is configured to: monitor a plurality of communication sessions, each of the plurality of communication sessions guided by a respective one of the plurality of baseline scripts; obtain information about an actual call flow of each of the communication sessions; and send the obtained information about the actual call flow of each of the communication sessions to the analytics engine; and the analytics engine is configured to determine, based on an analysis of the obtained information about the actual call flow of each of the plurality of communication sessions, one or more proposed changes to the first baseline script associated with the first client for guiding a subsequent communication session.
Claim 2: The system of claim 1, wherein the analytics engine is configured to send the one or more proposed changes to the first baseline script to the applications server.
Claim 10: The system of claim 1, wherein: the agent comprises a speech-enabled intelligent script; and the first baseline script is the speech-enabled intelligent script.
Claim 13: A method, comprising: storing a plurality of baseline scripts, each of the plurality of baseline scripts associated with a client of a call-center and comprising a plurality of questions for guiding a communication session between an agent and a party, wherein the plurality of baseline scripts comprises a first baseline script associated with a first client; monitoring a plurality of communication sessions, each of the plurality of communication sessions guided by a respective one of the plurality of baseline scripts; obtaining information about an actual call flow of each of the communication sessions; and determining, based on an analysis of the obtained information about the actual call flow of each of the plurality of communication sessions, one or more proposed changes to the first baseline script associated with the first client for Guiding a subsequent communication session.
Claim 15: The method of claim 13, further comprising notifying a client associated with the first baseline script that the one or more proposed changes to the first baseline script are available for review.
Claim 21: The method of claim 13, wherein: the agent comprises a speech-enabled intelligent script; and the first baseline script is the speech-enabled intelligent script.
For these reasons, claims 23-42 are rejected. Claims 24-29 depend on claim 23. Claims 31-36 depend on claim 30. Claims 38-42 depend on claim 37.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
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 response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10 a.m. - 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LISA HASHEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights