DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 June 2026 has been entered.
Claims 21 , and 23-40 are pending in the present application. Claims 21, 32, and 40 were amended in the response filed 22 June 2026; claims 1-20, and 22 have status cancelled. .
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 21, 32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel et al. US Patent 8,775,514 B2 in view of Nowak et al. US Patent 10,079,937 B2 and Behere et al. US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0095267 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Goel et al. teaches the following:
A computing system for providing assistance to a service representative interacting with a customer, the computing system comprising one or more processors and a memory in communication with the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, [note: Figure 1 (101) customer service platform ] cause the one or more processors to:
analyze a conversation between the service representative and the customer to identify one or more keywords generated during the conversation [note: column 2 lines 23-57; Figure 1 (115) speech-to-text module; column 4 lines 31-64 telephony capabilities; column 4 lines 47-64, “may capture voice and/or text correspondence so that the converted correspondences may be presented”; column 8 lines 23-25 text messages ];
store the one or more identified keywords in a database of keywords, the database including previously identified keywords associated with previously generated virtual content;
generate virtual content for the service representative based upon a comparison between the identified one or more keywords and previously identified keywords stored in the database of keywords [note: Figure 7 (700) GUI interface screen; column 11 line 43 through column 12 line 16 ]; and
cause a screen to present the virtual content associated with the service representative [note: Figure 7 (700) GUI interface screen; column 11 line 43 through column 12 line 16 ].
Although Goel et al. teach the invention as cited; they do not explicitly teach identifying keywords generated during the conversation. However, Nowak et al. teach the feature as follows [note: column 15 lines 66-67, “extract one or more keywords from the at least one monitored conversation”; column 16 lines38-41 and lines 52-54 determines correlation between keywords, and means for prompts and chats]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited references since both are directed toward enhanced customer interactive experience and extracting keywords is a well-known technique when analyzing conversations and/or voice recognition technique.
Although Goel et al. and Nowak et al. teach the invention as cited above, they do not explicitly disclose storing keywords in a database of keywords. However, Behere et al. teaches the feature as follows [note: paragraph 0036, “The keywords may be generated based on the knowledge stored in the database 170, which may include a listing of known keywords relevant to the subject matter of the FAQ.” ]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the effective filing date to have combined the cited reference since it is also directed toward optimized retrieval of relevant information in a database and gives further detail on keyword analysis techniques used to enhance information retrieval.
The limitations of claims 2 and 40 parallel claim 21; therefore they are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-24 and 33-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, and 23-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the current rejection.
ARGUMENT: Claims were rejected under 35 USC 112; the claims have been amended to overcome the rejection.
RESPONSE: The amendment overcomes the rejection.
ARGUMENT: Claims 21, 32, and 40 have been amended the prior art does not teach storing identified keywords in a database of keywords as claimed..
RESPONSE: Note newly cited reference Behere et al. teaches the feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRETA ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4118. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Hassan Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/GRETA L ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights