Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/784,911

MULTIPLICITY ELASTICITY

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 25, 2024
Examiner
LAEKEMARIAM, YOSEF K
Art Unit
2691
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Avaya Management L.P.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
792 granted / 961 resolved
+20.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
993
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
71.5%
+31.5% vs TC avg
§102
8.3%
-31.7% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 961 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Allowable Subject Matter 1.Claims 4-5 and 14-15 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. 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. 3.Claim(s) 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stepanov et al. (US 20210266405) in view of Booher et al. (US 20220207538). Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Stepanov discloses a system, comprising: a communication device comprising a network interface to a network (fig.2, agent 120 connected via a network 213); and at least one microprocessor coupled to a computer memory comprising instructions, that when read by the at least one microprocessor (Paragraph: 0083 and fig.5, memory 504, processing unit 502: Stepanov discusses microprocessor-based systems), cause the at least one microprocessor to perform: setting a maximum number of concurrent communications to a default value for an agent device utilized by an agent (Paragraphs: 0105-0106 and 0031: Stepanov discusses how the agent can continue to take more concurrent communications if the agent has not yet reached their max concurrent items value (i.e. it is obvious to set any value as a default value); and how that agent also becomes unavailable to take a new communication, once the agent is concurrently handling as many items as the agent's max concurrent setting); upon determining that a number of concurrent communications is less than the maximum number of concurrent communications, connecting a communication to the agent device (Paragraph: 0106: Stepanov discusses how the agent can continue to take more concurrent communications if the agent has not yet reached their max concurrent items value), wherein the communication comprises communication content encoded for transmission over the network between the agent device and a customer device utilized by a customer (Paragraphs: 0030, 0032 and fig.1, 110, 130, 150: Stepanov discusses how customers interact with a contact center using voice, email, text, and web interfaces to communicate with agent(s) through a network and one or more of text or multimedia channels); and upon determining that the complexity indicators are above a first threshold complexity value, decreasing the maximum number of concurrent communications (Paragraphs: 0031, 0099 and 0106: Stepanov discusses how a concurrent communication can be assumed to take a percentage of the agent's attention, such as, 20% for some queues and 50% for another (i.e. based on complexity); and how the maximum number of concurrent communication of an agent is a personal setting, defined by the agent and/or their supervisor (i.e. a set threshold complexity values); Stepanov also discusses how a queue that takes 20% of the agent's attention would have a max concurrent of 5, while the queue which take 50% of agent attention (i.e. more complex one) would have less than 5 or decreasing concurrent communication)). Stepanov discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically point out “monitoring the communication content, by at least one microprocessor executing an automated agent, for each communication of the agent device for complexity indicators; scoring the complexity indicators” Booher however discloses monitoring the communication content, by at least one microprocessor executing an automated agent (Paragraphs: 0070 and 0104: Booher discusses how the system processes content in real-time from a customer, and the sentiment analysis performed immediately (i.e., as the conversation is occurring) and automatically without requiring human intervention by a call center administrator; and how the controller provide sentiment analysis feedback from the neural network to the agent device), for each communication of the agent device for complexity indicators; scoring the complexity indicators (Paragraphs: 0128-0129 and 0096: Booher discusses how the Low-complexity inquiries are assigned zero points, medium complexity inquiries are assigned two points, and high complexity issues are assigned four points (i.e. scoring the complexity indicators); and how an Average Response Time of the customer to an agent, rounded to the nearest integer with a maximum value of ten based on an inquiry complexity) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Stepanov, and modify a system to monitor the communication content, by at least one microprocessor executing an automated agent, for each communication of the agent device for complexity indicators; scoring the complexity indicators, as taught by Booher, thus allowing to ensures simple and efficient managing of the connections between the agents and the customers, as discussed by Booher. Considering claims 2 and 12, Stepanov discloses the method of claim 1 and 11, further comprising, upon determining that the complexity indicators are below a second threshold complexity value, increasing the maximum number of concurrent communications (Paragraphs: 0031, 0094, 0099 and 0106: Stepanov discusses how a communication can only be routed to an agent who is idle or is working on concurrent items and has a percent attention open which is greater than or equal to the percent attention required for the new concurrent communication; and how a queue that takes 20% of the agent's attention (i.e. a second threshold value) would have a max concurrent of 5 or increasing concurrent communication, while the queue which take 50% of agent attention (i.e. a first threshold value) would have less than 5 or decreasing concurrent communication)). Considering claims 3 and 13, Booher discloses the method of claims 1 and 11, wherein monitoring the communication content, by the at least one microprocessor executing the automated agent, comprises monitoring the communication content by a neural network trained to determine the complexity indicators from the communication content (Paragraphs: 0070 and 0104: Booher discusses how the system processes content in real-time from a customer, and the sentiment analysis performed immediately (i.e., as the conversation is occurring) and automatically without requiring human intervention by a call center administrator; and how the controller provide sentiment analysis feedback from the neural network to the agent device). Considering claims 6 and 16, Booher discloses the method of claims 1 and 11, wherein monitoring the communication content further comprises receiving a topic from content prior to connecting the communication to the agent device (Paragraphs: 0052, 0069 and 0080: Booher discloses how based on the characteristics of a customer, controller select a specialized call center; and how a specialized call center may be chosen that has additional expertise in a product or issue). Considering claims 7 and 17, Stepanov discloses the method of claims 1 and 11, wherein upon determining that the complexity indicators are above the first threshold complexity value, further comprises decreasing the maximum number of concurrent communications comprises transferring at least one communication of the number of concurrent communications to another agent device (Paragraphs: 0031 and 0105-0106: a communication can only be routed to an agent who is idle or is working on concurrent items and has a percent attention open which is greater than or equal to the percent attention required for the new concurrent communication). Considering claims 8 and 18, Stepanov discloses the method of claims 1 and 11, wherein upon determining that the complexity indicators are above the first threshold complexity value, further comprises decreasing the maximum number of concurrent communications further comprises omitting connecting the communication to the agent device (Paragraphs: 0105-0106 and 0031: Once the agent is concurrently handling as many items as the agent's max concurrent setting, that agent becomes unavailable to take a new communication). Considering claim 9, Stepanov discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the maximum number of concurrent communications further comprises a maximum number of type-specific communications (Paragraphs: 0031, 0005 and 0010). Considering claim 10, Stepanov discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the type-specific communications comprise one or more of an audio communication comprising encoded speech from at least one of the agent or the customer, a video communication comprising encoded images of at least one of the agent or the customer, an email, or a text chat (Paragraphs: 0030, 0032 and fig.1, 110, 130, 150: Stepanov discusses how customers interact with a contact center using voice, email, text, and web interfaces to communicate with agent(s) through a network and one or more of text or multimedia channels). Considering claim 19, Stepanov discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the agent device comprises the at least one microprocessor and the network interface (Paragraphs: 0032, 0083 and fig.1: microprocessor-based system). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F. 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (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 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. YOSEF K. LAEKEMARIAM Primary Examiner Art Unit 2651 /YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 25, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604140
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CROSS-FADING AUDIO SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598443
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF PROVIDING FADED AUDIO EXPERIENCE DURING TRANSITION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593007
SECURE VIDEO VISITATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12593187
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM AND MEASUREMENT METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570197
IN-VEHICLE CONVERSATION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+14.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 961 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month