DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claims 1, 10 and 19, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, 1-20 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claims 10 and 19. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to a computer system and network communication interface.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of detecting a call between a user and an agent, generating script, monitoring call speech using voice recognition, and adapting the content/script flow based on input on a UI, and navigating within a script/flow fall into certain methods of organizing human activity. It is organizing and managing human interaction for claim event/handling.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The additional claim limitations a computer system and user interface for the agent, content flow script displayed on UI, voice recognition process, and logic that adapts and navigates within the script based on recognized words and agent input, doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting its functions.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claims are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010(2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the processor/memory recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 depending on the independent claims include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for analyzing video using machine learning model.
Therefore, all claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0136222) in view of LAIRD et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0407514).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a computing system comprising: a network communication interface [fig. 5, 7 and related description]; one or more processors [Para. 119 and 120]; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations [Para. 119 and 120] comprising: based at least in part on detecting a call session between a user and a call representative [Para. 20, fig. 1 and related description], generating a content flow (instructions/commands/rule), including dynamically scripting (different script), for the call representative to communicate with the user over one or more call sessions [Para. 23 “adaptive conversational system 110 may implement (at 3 and 3′) or effectuate the one or more actions by providing an alert, message, instruction, information, data, or other notification to change a display or operation of call control devices used by first telephone agent 120-1 and second telephone agent 120-2”; Para. 22; and Para. 31 “adaptive conversational system 110 may provide (at 6) a different script for telephone agent 120 to follow in response to detecting (at 5) that the improper call behavior has been corrected.”]; the content flow being generated as part of a user interface (call control device display) for the call representative (telephone agent 120) [Para. 23 “adaptive conversational system 110 may implement (at 3 and 3′) or effectuate the one or more actions by providing an alert, message, instruction, information, data, or other notification to change a display or operation of call control devices used by first telephone agent 120-1 and second telephone agent 120-2.”; Para. 24 “adaptive conversational system 110 may provide a change to the call control device of third telephone agent 120-3, and third telephone agent 120-3 may act (at 7) in the controlled manner specified by adaptive conversational system 110 and conveyed to third telephone agent 120-3 via the change that is made to the call control device of third telephone agent 120-3”; Para. 56 “As shown in FIG. 4, adaptive conversational system 110 may provide (at 2) a real-time alert to the call control device of telephone agent 120-1 once the compliance notice is not provided within the initial 15 seconds of the conversation.”; fig. 1 and related description]; monitoring a speech of the call session (conversation) using a voice recognition process (speech recognition service) [Para. 110 and para. 111 “conversation element extraction engine 1050 may produce a transcript of each conversation as each word is spoken using speech recognition services.”]; dynamically adapting/changing the content flow (instruction/command/script) based on inputs provided (tagged extracted agent’s conversation elements) by the call representative on the user interface (call control device) and one or more words recognized by the voice/speech recognition process/services from the monitored speech [Para. 111, 113, 23 and 24; Since the claim does not explicitly teach what the input is or how it is entered, the cited portion of the reference reads on the claim limitation. It is also clear that the change in content flow is dynamic]; and
wherein dynamically adapting/changing the content flow includes automatically navigating through at least a portion of the content flow (different instructions, alert, different script) based on one or more words recognized by the voice recognition process during the call session [Para. 22 “From the detected conversation elements and/or obtained telephony information, adaptive conversational system 110 may determine different rules that apply to the calls at different times. A rule may apply to a particular point in a call when one or more of the conversation elements, that are detected at the particular point or earlier points in the call, and/or obtained telephony information match to triggering elements of a rule.”; Para. 28 “adaptive conversational system 110 may control the discussion by dynamically providing telephone agent 120 with a script to follow in response to telephone agent 120 violating the quality control rule when operating without a script”.; Para. 31 “adaptive conversational system 110 may provide (at 6) a different script for telephone agent 120 to follow in response to detecting (at 5) that the improper call behavior has been corrected” and para. 23. It is clear that the system the system navigates through content flows/scripts].
However, Brown doesn’t explicitly teach an agent to complete an information gather process pertaining to a claim event, and content flow being generated as part of a customized user interface.
LAIRD teaches an agent complete an information gathering process pertaining to a claim event using a customized (diagnostic) user interface [Para. 181 and Para. 182 “The Diagnostic user interface therefore may also allow the user to select which types of markers are to be highlighted in the speaker separated transcript. This may be done using checkboxes which allow a user to select and deselect different marker types to be highlighted in the speaker separated transcript”; Para. 322 “An Example interaction may be an interaction in the context of a telephone call to make an insurance claim, wherein the agent is a call centre operative and the subject is a caller calling to make a first notification of loss insurance claim”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the FNOL claim event information gathering workflow of Brown into the adaptive, ASR-driven conversational system of LAIRD, so that the same dynamic script/content flow mechanism in Brown is used to complete an information gather process pertaining to a claim event.
Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations [Para. 123].
Regarding claim 19, Brown a computer-implemented method of generating customized content flows for call representative, the method being performed by one or more processors [Para. 17].
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0136222) in view of LAIRD et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0407514) and further in view of Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0008071).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Brown in view of LAIRD doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, Martin teaches wherein automatically navigating through at least the portion of the content flow (dialog, Asr sub-dialong 1-4) includes automatically navigating to a categorical sub-flow grouping (sub-dialong) of the content flow based on the one or more words recognized by the voice-recognition process [Para. 17, 18, 26, and 27].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD to automatically navigating through a portion of content flow, feature as taught by Martin; because the modification enable the system to improve directory assistance call by flexibly switching between automated ASR sub-dialogs and human operators using configurable switches.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Brown in view of LAIRD doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, Martin teaches wherein dynamically adapting the content flow (dialog with asr sub-dialogs and braching) includes adapting the dynamic scripting (asr sub-dialongs, different sub-dialogs) based on the categorical sub-flow grouping (sub dialog for residential listings, sub dialog for give out process, and sub-dialog for reverse directory assistance, disambiguation sub-dialog) [Para. 17, 24, 27, fig. 2-4 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD to teach the claim limitation, feature as taught by Martin; because the modification enables the system to improve directory assistance call by flexibly switching between automated ASR sub-dialogs and human operators using configurable switches.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0136222) in view of LAIRD et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0407514) and further in view of Jaiswal et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0284522).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Brown in view of LAIRD doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, Jaiswal teaches wherein the operations include: after ending the call session (telephone call between caller and IVR system drops), resuming a self-service state (self-service interactions with callers, IVR session) of the information gathering process by the user to continue the content flow [Para. 4 “An IVR system is an automated call processing system providing self-service interactions with callers through a telephone call”; Para. 15-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Jaiswal; because the modification enables the system to improve IVR call handling by preserving and restoring the caller’s session state after a drop, so the system can pick up the automated flow where it left off instead of forcing the caller to start over.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0136222) in view of LAIRD et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0407514) further view of Jaiswal et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0284522), and further in view of Syed et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0383479).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Brown in view of LAIRD further in view of Jaiswal doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, Syed teaches wherein the self- service state corresponds to the user initiating an application session (mobile application, mobile device application 242a) to interact with a claim interface (GUI 220, interface 220) presented on a computing device (mobile electronics device 202) of the user and continue the information gathering process (process to submit a current insurance claim, chat query and chat response) [claim 1, Para. 29, 30, and 58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD further in view of Jaiswal to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Syed; because the modification enables the system to improve caller’s experience in a call center.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Brown in view of LAIRD further in view of Jaiswal doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, Syed teaches to resume the self-service state by transmitting a two-factor authentication code (two factor authentication challenge, challenge sent to the communication address) to proceed with the application session and information gathering process (process to submit a current insurance claim) [Para. 59, fig. 5, 7 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD further in view of Jaiswal to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Syed; because the modification enables the system to improve caller’s experience in a call center.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Brown in view of LAIRD further in view of Jaiswal doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
However, Syed teaches wherein the operations further comprise causing the computing system to initiate a request to the user to resume the information gathering process via one or more call sessions with one or more call representatives using the customized user interface [fig. 1, 3, and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD further in view of Jaiswal to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Syed; because the modification enables the system to improve caller’s experience in a call center.
Claims 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0136222) in view of LAIRD et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0407514) and further in view of Alev et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0166518).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Brown in view of LAIRD doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Alev teaches wherein the operations further comprise: periodically archiving (at regular intervals, auto save time out algorithm) a current state of the information gathering process (online application web form) to facilitate a future call session (user returns to the online application, future access through another client application) or a future application session to enable the user to complete the information gathering process from the current state [Para. 28, 35, and 32].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Alev; because the modification enables the system to improve caller’s experience in a call center.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Brown in view of LAIRD doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Alev teaches wherein the operations further comprise: initiating a reminder engine to generate a customized reminder strategy to transmit reminder communications to a computing device of the user to facilitate the user in completing the information gathering process [fig. 3-5 and related description].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brown in view of LAIRD to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Alev; because the modification enables the system to improve caller’s experience in a call center.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666