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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control unit that executes …” in claims 1 and 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites “… recognizing … content of the customer’s utterance …”, “… recognizing … customer’s emotion from the voice …”, and “… filtering the content …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “contact center”. For example, but for the “contact center” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually recognizing speech and emotion of the user and filtering or removing some words from the recognized text. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a “contact center” to perform these steps. The use of a “contact center” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “control unit” is merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similar to independent claim 1 above, the steps/elements of “voicebot” and voice synthesis in dependent claim 2-7, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The voicebot is considered “insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” because they fail to provide meaningful significance that go beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Can et al. (USPG 2023/0298615, hereinafter Can).
Regarding claim 1, Can discloses a contact center support system that supports a contact center, the contact center support system comprising:
a control unit that executes a plurality of processes for communication performed between an operator of the contact center and a customer (call center in figure 2 and/or paragraphs 42-45, analyzing communication between customer and agent), wherein
the communication includes a call between the operator and the customer (call center in figure 2 and/or paragraphs 42-45, analyzing communication between customer and agent), the plurality of processes include at least a voice recognition process of recognizing at least a content of the customer’s utterance from a voice of the call (figure 2, speech recognizer 206 for converting speech of the call into text), an emotion recognition process of recognizing at least the customers emotion from the voice of the call (figure 2, prosodic cue detector 210 and semantic cue detector 212 are responsible for detecting emotion in the speech of the customer in the call; also see paragraphs 53-55), and a filtering process of filtering the content of the utterance of the customer and/or the operator in the call (figure 2, summarizer 216 is responsible for filtering out unimportant words), and the control unit simultaneously executes the processes included in the plurality of processes in parallel (process in figure 2, the speech recognition, the emotion detector, and the summarizer are independent processes and are operated in parallel).
Regarding claims 6-7, Can further discloses the contact center support system according to claim 1, wherein the control unit executes the plurality of processes as a synchronous process (see figure 2, these processes are separate individual processes; system includes many processes that some are independent and some are dependent processes); wherein the control unit executes the plurality of processes as an asynchronous process (see figure 2, these processes are separate individual processes; system includes many processes that some are independent and some are dependent processes).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of Braganza (USPG 2025/0055939, hereinafter Braganza).
Regarding claims 2-3, Can fails to explicitly disclose, however, Braganza teaches the contact center support system according to claim 1, wherein a response to the customer in the call is made by a voicebot that utters the content of text input by the operator or by the operator's utterance (process in figure 3), and the control unit reproduces a standby voice when the operator’s input of text or a voice is not detected for a predetermined period of time during the call (paragraphs 32-33, “ If the agent is busy with another matter, speech generator 20 may fill in gaps in the conversation with any suitable phrases, such as “I'm still looking,” “please give me a few more minutes,” “don't hang up, please, I'm still researching the answer”; asking the customer to give a few more minutes after initial time has passed); wherein the response to the customer in the call is made by the utterance of the voicebot, and a voice uttered by the voicebot is subjected to a voice synthesis process so as to have the same tone as the standby voice and is reproduced subsequently to the reproduction of the standby voice (process in figures 2-3; the same system/bot would produce the same voice characteristics in the same session).
Since Can and Braganza are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of converting the operator’s response to a synthesized speech with the same voice characteristics in the same communication session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of Braganza, and further in view of Fujioka et al. (USPG 2019/0066658, hereinafter Fujioka).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Can fails to explicitly disclose, however, Fujioka further teaches the contact center support system according to claim 2, wherein the response to the customer during the call is made by the operator's utterance, and the voice uttered by the operator is subjected to a voice synthesis process and/or a voice quality conversion process so as to have the same tone as the standby voice and is reproduced subsequently to the reproduction of the standby voice (paragraphs 7-9, modifying the speech of the operator to sound like an automated response).
Since the modified Can and Fujioka are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of modifying the operator’s speech to sound like an automatic center response. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of Braganza, and further in view of Mehta et al. (USPN 11870757, hereinafter Mehta).
Regarding claim 5, Can further discloses the contact center support system according to claim 3, wherein the voice recognition process includes a process of converting the voice uttered by the customer in the call into text (see figure 2, speech recognizer 206), the filtering process includes a masking process of, when a predetermined word is included in the text description, converting the word into another word to present the text to the operator in a form in which a content represented by the word is concealed, and when the response to the customer is made by the utterance of the voicebot (figure 2, summarizer 216 for masking or removing some words).
The modified Can still fails to explicitly disclose, however, Mehta teaches the control unit restores the word to the word before conversion by the masking process when the other word is included in the text input by the operator (col. 13, line 46 to col. 14, line14, restoring masked data in the response).
Since the modified Can and Mehta are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of masking and restoring masked data0. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of McCord et al. (USPG 2018/0082679, hereinafter McCord).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Can discloses a contact center support system and method that supports a contact center, the contact center support system comprising: a control unit that executes a plurality of processes for communication performed between an operator of the contact center and a customer (call center in figure 2 and/or paragraphs 42-45, analyzing communication between customer and agent), wherein the communication includes a call between the operator and the customer (call center in figure 2 and/or paragraphs 42-45, analyzing communication between customer and agent), the plurality of processes include at least a voice recognition process of recognizing at least a content of the customer’s utterance from a voice of the call (figure 2, speech recognizer 206 for converting speech of the call into text), an emotion recognition process of recognizing at least the customer’s emotion from the voice of the call (figure 2, prosodic cue detector 210 and semantic cue detector 212 are responsible for detecting emotion in the speech of the customer in the call; also see paragraphs 53-55), and an emotion synthesis process of analyzing the voice of the call, alleviating or invalidating parameters for determining the customer’s emotion in the voice (paragraph 128, “ The prosodic cues may comprise any of: frequency changes, pitch, pauses, length of sounds, volume (e.g., loudness), speech rate, voice quality or stress placed on a specific utterance of the speech of the first participant and/or second participant”; also see figure 2, prosodic cue detector 210 and semantic cue detector 212 are responsible for detecting emotion in the speech of the customer in the call; also see paragraphs 53-55), and the control unit simultaneously executes the processes included in the plurality of processes in parallel (process in figure 2, the speech recognition, the emotion detector, and the summarizer are independent processes and are operated in parallel).
Can fails to explicitly disclose, however, McCord teaches resynthesizing the voice, the parameters include at least a pitch of the voice that represents the tone of the customer's voice or a voice volume of the voice that represents a volume of the customer's voice (paragraph 52, “When producing emotion-enhanced audio for output, speech audio samples may be altered to convey emotional content in a variety of ways including (but not limited to) altering the pitch or articulation of sounds or syllables, specific word or phrase selection (as some words or phrases may imply certain emotional connotations), speech tempo, or other audio markers of emotion”).
Since Can and McCord are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of resynthesizing a voice using a pitch or volume parameter of the original voice. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claims 13-14, Can further discloses the contact center support system according to claim 8, wherein the control unit executes the plurality of processes as a synchronous process (see figure 2, these processes are separate individual processes; system includes many processes that some are independent and some are dependent processes); wherein the control unit executes the plurality of processes as an asynchronous process (see figure 2, these processes are separate individual processes; system includes many processes that some are independent and some are dependent processes).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of McCord, and further in view of Braganza.
Regarding claims 9-10, the modified Can fails to explicitly disclose, however, Braganza teaches the contact center support system according to claim 8, wherein a response to the customer in the call is made by a voicebot that utters the content of text input by the operator or by the operator's utterance (process in figure 3), and the control unit reproduces a standby voice when the operator’s input of text or a voice is not detected for a predetermined period of time during the call (paragraphs 32-33, “ If the agent is busy with another matter, speech generator 20 may fill in gaps in the conversation with any suitable phrases, such as “I'm still looking,” “please give me a few more minutes,” “don't hang up, please, I'm still researching the answer”; asking the customer to give a few more minutes after initial time has passed); wherein the response to the customer in the call is made by the utterance of the voicebot, and a voice uttered by the voicebot is subjected to a voice synthesis process so as to have the same tone as the standby voice and is reproduced subsequently to the reproduction of the standby voice (process in figures 2-3; the same system/bot would produce the same voice characteristics in the same session); wherein the response to the customer in the call is made by the utterance of the voicebot, and a voice uttered by the voicebot is subjected to a voice synthesis process so as to have the same tone as the standby voice and is reproduced subsequently to the reproduction of the standby voice (process in figures 2-3; the same system/bot would produce the same voice characteristics in the same session).
Since the modified Can and Braganza are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of converting the operator’s response to a synthesized speech with the same voice characteristics in the same communication session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of McCord, further in view of Braganza, and further in view of Fujioka.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Can fails to explicitly disclose, however, Fujioka further teaches contact center support system according to claim 9, wherein the response to the customer during the call is made by the operator's utterance, and the voice uttered by the operator is subjected to a voice synthesis process and/or a voice quality conversion process so as to have the same tone as the standby voice and is reproduced subsequently to the reproduction of the standby voice (paragraphs 7-9, modifying the speech of the operator to sound like an automated response).
Since the modified Can and Fujioka are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of modifying the operator’s speech to sound like an automatic center response. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Can in view of Braganza, and further in view of Mehta et al. (USPN 11870757, hereinafter Mehta).
Regarding claim 5, Can further discloses the contact center support system according to claim 10, wherein the voice recognition process includes a process of converting the voice uttered by the customer in the call into text (see figure 2, speech recognizer 206), the filtering process includes a masking process of, when a predetermined word is included in the text description, converting the word into another word to present the text to the operator in a form in which a content represented by the word is concealed, and when the response to the customer is made by the utterance of the voicebot (figure 2, summarizer 216 for masking or removing some words).
The modified Can still fails to explicitly disclose, however, Mehta teaches the control unit restores the word to the word before conversion by the masking process when the other word is included in the text input by the operator (col. 13, line 46 to col. 14, line14, restoring masked data in the response).
Since the modified Can and Mehta are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of masking and restoring masked data0. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krishnan (USPN 2021/0306457) discloses a method of detecting emotion in a verbal conversation between an operator and customer and converting it into text that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656