DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
2. 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcalm (Pub. No.: US 2019/0342226 A1; hereinafter Montcalm) in view of Anandadoss et al (Patent No.: US 10,171,657 B1; hereinafter Anandadoss)
Consider claims 1, 10, and 19, Montcalm clearly shows and discloses a contact center, a method, and a system comprising: a microprocessor; and a computer readable medium, coupled with the microprocessor and comprising microprocessor readable and executable instructions that, when executed by the microprocessor, cause the microprocessor to: receive, via a network, a first communication over a first communication channel, wherein the first communication is placed on hold in a contact center queue (One or more of the communication types may comprise multiple queues and the queue monitor may be configured to average the number of users on hold in the multiple queues) (paragraphs: 0013, 0015, 0047and fig. 6, labels 602-604, 620); provide, via the network, a user associated with the first communication an option to terminate the first communication over the first communication channel and receive queue status information over a second communication channel (when the number of users on hold in a queue for a first communication type exceeds a threshold value for the first communication type, the communications system sending a notification to one or more of the users on hold in the queue, the notification comprising an option to switch to an alternative communication type) (paragraphs: 0022, 0028, 0049 and fig. 6, label 608, 622, 624); and in response to the user selecting the option (fig. 6, label 624, 626): terminate the first communication while maintaining a queue status in the contact center queue for the first communication (the user terminal receives the case ID form the server. This hang-up is not considered an abandonment of the call, as the case ID remains open and has been transferred to the new communication type) (paragraphs: and 0029, 0076, and fig. 6, 614, 628, and 616-618); however, Montcalm does not specifically disclose provide, via the network, the queue status information; in response to the queue status of the first communication being within a threshold, notify the user to initiate a second communication over the first communication channel; and replace the first communication in the contact center queue with the second communication.
In the same field of endeavor, Anandadoss clearly specifically discloses provide, via the network, the queue status information (The plurality of channels available for contacting the bank are displayed in the user interface along with estimated wait times) (col. 6, lines 25-30 and fig. 3) in response to the queue status of the first communication being within a threshold, notify the user to initiate a second communication over the first communication channel (The plurality of channels available for contacting the bank are displayed in the user interface along with estimated wait times) (col. 6, lines 25-31); and replace the first communication in the contact center queue with the second communication (The customer can select which channel best suits their needs from the plurality of options displayed, which in this example, might be the fastest means of communicating with the contact center. The customer would select the phone channel as it has the shortest estimated wait time) (col. 6, lines 25-44, col. 7, lines 14-60; fig. 3 and fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Anandadoss into teaching of Montcalm for the purpose of provide, via the network, the queue status information through the second communication.
Consider claims 2, and 11, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, wherein the first communication channel comprises a voice channel (Montcalm: paragraphs: 0045, Anandadoss: col. 8, lines1-35 and claims 1-5 ).
Consider claims 3, and 12, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, wherein the second communication channel comprises a text channel (Montcalm: paragraphs: 0057; and Anandadoss: fig. 3).
Consider claims 4, and 13, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, wherein the queue status information comprises an estimated wait time and a queue position (Montcalm: paragraphs: 0016, 0017, 0029).
Consider claims 5, and 14, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, wherein the queue status comprises a position in the contact center queue, and wherein the first communication being within the threshold comprises the first communication being next in the contact center queue (Montcalm: paragraphs: 0016 and 0029).
Consider claims 6, and 15, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, further comprising: notifying the user of an estimated wait time (Anandadoss: claim 1-d).
Consider claims 7, and 16, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, further comprising: notifying the user of a current queue position (Montcalm: paragraphs: 0016 and 0029).
Consider claims 8, and 17, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, further comprising: routing the first communication to the contact center queue using an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system (Anandadoss: col. 7, lines 28-40).
Consider claims 9, and 18, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the system and the method, further comprising: the user selecting a type of the second communication channel to receive queue status information (Anandadoss: col. 7, lines 28-68, fig. 3 and claim 8).
Consider claim 20, Montcalm and Anandadoss clearly show the contact center, wherein the first communication channel comprises a voice channel, and wherein the user selects a type of the second communication channel (Anandadoss: col. 8, lines1-35 and claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571- 270- 1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571- 272- 7503. 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).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights