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 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(s) 1, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhavapeddi (2014/0134998) in view of Meriaz (2017/0265065) and Harnas (2025/0330538).
Regarding claim 1, Madhavapeddi discloses a method for entity verification and providing call intent on inbound mobile device communications (called party, abstract) comprising, initiating by a computing system (100, Figure 1) an outbound call from an agent device to an end user mobile device (agent 114 can call mobile devices 122, 124), determining by the computing system, the entity name and image associated with an outbound call (step 404-406, Figure 4a and 302, Figure 4b – advertiser entity name examples 5a-5c), determine a reason for the outbound call (marketing para 46-47), and displaying by the end user device, the entity name and call reason on the end user mobile device in conjunction with the receipt of the outbound call (para 50-54, delivery of solicitation identifying the company and reason). Madhavapeddi fails to disclose the use of using the API of the OS to transmit the name image and call reason, or a graphical user interface for the incoming call. Madhavapeddi discloses the use of android or iOS devices para 22 and tailoring the notification based on the operating system, para 54 as well as the use of APIs in facilitating the campaign, para 33).
However, Meriaz teaches a system in which an incoming call to a mobile device can display the entity name and image in conjunction with an agent call to the mobile device (para 46-54, note Figure 5 – incoming call also triggers browser open which displays an entity name and image (DISH) and a reason (customer service chat) visually on a mobile device, figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include entity names and images in order for the incoming call to be easily discerned for the end user.
The combination of Madhavapeddi and Meriaz fail to disclose the use of an API to adjust incoming call graphical user interface. However, Harnas teaches that an API is used to adjust a incoming call graphical user interface based on the operating system and incoming call identification (Figure 2, SDK 219 and caller id service work together as well as para 03 and 67-77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include APIs to adjust the incoming call via GUI to provide extra information to the end user.
Regarding claim 11, Madhavapeddi discloses a system for entity verification and providing call intent on inbound mobile device communications (called party, abstract) comprising, at least one an end user mobile device (mobile devices 122, 124), at least one processor and at least one memory coupled to the processor (Figure 2, servers 130 contain processor 240 and memories – databases inherently are stored in memory, para 83) to cause the system to: initiating (100, Figure 1) an outbound call from an agent device (114) to an end user mobile device determining by the computing system, the entity name and image associated with an outbound call (step 404-406, Figure 4a and 302, Figure 4b – advertiser entity name examples 5a-5c), determine a reason for the outbound call (marketing para 46-47), and displaying by the end user device, the entity name and call reason on the end user mobile device in conjunction with the receipt of the outbound call (para 50-54, delivery of solicitation identifying the company and reason). Madhavapeddi fails to disclose the use of using the API of the OS to transmit the name image and call reason, or a graphical user interface for the incoming call. Madhavapeddi discloses the use of android or iOS devices para 22 and tailoring the notification based on the operating system, para 54 as well as the use of APIs in facilitating the campaign, para 33).
However, Meriaz teaches a system in which an incoming call to a mobile device can display the entity name and image in conjunction with an agent call to the mobile device (para 46-54, note Figure 5 – incoming call also triggers browser open which displays an entity name and image (DISH) and a reason (customer service chat) visually on a mobile device, figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include entity names and images in order for the incoming call to be easily discerned for the end user.
The combination of Madhavapeddi and Meriaz fail to disclose the use of an API to adjust incoming call graphical user interface. However, Harnas teaches that an API is used to adjust an incoming call graphical user interface based on the operating system and incoming call identification (Figure 2, SDK 219 and caller id service work together as well as para 03 and 67-77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include APIs to adjust the incoming call via GUI to provide extra information to the end user.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Madhavapeddi further discloses the use of a cache to store settings related to the solicitation (para 63-66).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 13-15, Madhavapeddi discloses initiating a service associated with the end user mobile device and the call returns a positive response to the computing system (para 46, calling group of end user devices and determining if the end user has positive acceptance). Also note, para 54- link sent to mobile is operating system dependent which would require a configuration/capability database based on either iOS or Android. Meriaz also teaches the use of application programs (such as API) according to call control rules (para 48). Thus claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected for the same reasoning as given above.
Regarding claims 10 and 20,Madhavapeddi further discloses that he computing system comprises a contact center system (para 20, call center and server 130 communicates with call center, para 24)
Claim(s) 6, 8, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhavapeddi, Meriaz, and Harnas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mullane (2020/0162612).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 16, and 18, the combination of Madhavapeddi, Meriaz, and Harnas fail to explicitly disclose the determining of the outbound call form the agent device is associated with a call campaign or based on historical interactions with contact center agents. Madhavapeddi discloses that a call campaign can be generated by the business server. However, Mullane teaches in an analogous art, the use of a call center in which historical interactions with a contact center agent are taken into account (Figure 20, steps 2002-2018 – previous interactions with the customer service center are monitored and based on the model, allowing an agent to interact or redirecting the user). Mullane also teaches the outbound call campaign call reason is shown to the user as part of the communication (Figures 9-18, showing and or directed the user to features based on the call reason). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include call reasons or basing campaigns on historical data in order to increase effectiveness of the call campaign.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhavapeddi, Meriaz, and Harnas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Probst (2016/0205248).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Madhavapeddi, Meriaz and Harnas discloses all the particulars of the claim except for determining an agent skill set of a contact center agent. However, Probst teaches that communications from mobile call centers can take into account the agent skill when initiating a call campaign (para 101-102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include agent skill considerations in order to reduce unnecessary calls in a campaign due to inexperienced agents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 19 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record (Madhavapeddi, Meriaz, Harnas) disclose the use of call centers to initiate campaigns which take into account entity names, images and reasons for the campaign which can be displayed on a mobile device based on the operating system and an API. However, none of the prior art of record discloses nor fairly suggests displaying a verification badge to confirm authenticity of the outgoing call in additions to the entity name, image, and call reason on the incoming call GUI in conjunction with receipt of the call from the agent device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Varman (10412222) discloses a conventional mobile call center and agent system.
Soppit (2018/0137505) disclose templates that can be updated on a mobile devices GUI depending on a location
Nagy (2021/0126997) discloses in-call displays including entity names and images based on a call between a call center and mobile device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights