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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to correspondence 05/26/26 regarding application 18/808,819, in which claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner agrees with Applicant on page 9 that no new matter is added by the amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 overcome the non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejections of claims 1-20 based on claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,495,113, and so the double patenting rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, as amended the claims are considered sufficiently distinct from the claims of US Patent 12,495,113 so that the rejections are no longer applicable.
Amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and so the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, as amended each of claims 1, 8, and 15 can no longer be practically performed as a mental process.
Since the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn as noted above, Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-15 regarding these rejections are moot.
On pages 15-16, Applicant argues that the amended claims are patentable over Thorne, Harris, and George, allegedly because the F1, F2, Enter, Escape, etc. keys described by Thorne do not correspond to the claimed “accelerator feature”. These arguments are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection based in part on the newly discovered reference to Doermann et al. (US 20200220974), which describes displaying script options to the agent with F1, F2, F4 keypress options the agent may press to jump to a script option, see Fig 3, [0026], which is believed to correspond more closely than the keypresses of Thorne to the “accelerator features” described as keyboard keys at Applicant’s original specification, [0067]. The new grounds for rejection based in part on Doermann are necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorne (US 6100891) in view of Harris et al. (US 20210142333), in further view of Doermann et al. (US 20200220974).
Consider claim 1, Thorne discloses a computing system (computer workstation, Col 2 lines 39-40) comprising:
a network communication interface (computer station is a networked PC, Col 2 lines 39-44);
one or more processors (a processor is inherent in PC running client-server software, Col 2 lines 40-41); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (a memory storing software instructions for execution by a processor is inherent in PC running client-server software, Col 2 lines 40-41), cause the computing system to:
generate an initial script and a content flow that includes the initial script for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings (generating and displaying call flow outline for graphically expressing the script, Col 4 lines 19-25, the entire script being organized as a series of hierarchical topics, shown as a call flow outline with subgroups such as topics 2 and 3 which are subtopics of topic 1, Fig 4, Col 4 lines 41-47);
based a topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings, update the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow (topics dynamically become available based on the current call context, Col 5 lines 1-4, and if the conversation does not follow the default scenario, an agent by navigate by selecting a topic from the outline, Col 4 lines 53-60, allowing the agent to “hop” from e.g. Topic 1 to Topic 3, Fig 4); and
provide an assistance interface for the call representative, the assistance interface providing input features for each of a plurality of sub-flow groupings (action panel 37 provides input fields for a topic in the call flow, Col 5 lines 15-35, Fig. 3), and being configured to navigate to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings during the call session (agent my use mouse or arrow keys to navigate among topics during the call, Col 4 lines 47-64); the assistance interface enabling the call representative to interact to navigate among the plurality of sub-flow groupings during the call session (agent my use mouse or arrow keys to navigate among topics, Col 4 lines 47-64).
Thorne does not specifically mention:
based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generate an initial script;
based on the user initiating a topic, update the content flow;
automatically navigate based on a topic initiated during the call session.
Harris discloses based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generate an initial script (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033]);
based on the user initiating a topic, update the content flow (the user submits a response containing the word “Singapore”, which prompts server computer to generate a graph query with the topic “Singapore” that brings up related concepts in conceptual graph, the results used to generate follow-up questions, i.e. updating the call flow, [0048-0049]);
automatically navigate based on a topic initiated during the call session (based on the topic “Singapore”, automatically navigating using graph concept retrieval to the question “would you like to be continue the interview in Mandarin?” [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne to result in: based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user as in Harris, generate an initial script and a content flow that includes the initial script for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings as in Thorne; and based on the user initiating a topic as in Harris, the topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings as in Thorne, update the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow as in Thorne, and automatically navigate, as in Harris, to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings of Thorne, based on a topic initiated during the call session as in Harris in order to reduce human error, as suggested by Harris ([0003]). Doing so would have led to predictable results of reducing problems caused by collecting inaccurate information, as suggested by Harris ([0003]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of contact centers.
Thorne and Harris do not specifically mention the assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative, the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface, the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping.
Doermann discloses an assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative (displaying script options to the agent with F1, F2, F4 keypress options the agent may press to jump to a script option, Fig 3, [0026], noting that Applicant’s specification describes “accelerator features” as keyboard keys similarly at original specification, [0067]), the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface (each keypress may be a keypress from a keyboard as well as selection of a graphical “key” with a mouse, [0053], [0026]), the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping (e.g. invocation of F4 jumps to branch 312 of the script, which is a sub-flow grouping of the call scripts, Fig 3, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne and Doermann such that the assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative, the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface, the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping in order to advance contact center technology, predictably improving the customer experience when interacting with a contact center, as suggested by Doermann ([0003]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of contact centers.
Consider claim 8, Thorne discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system (a processor executing instructions from memory is inherent in PC running client-server software, Col 2 lines 40-41), cause the computing system to:
generate an initial script and a content flow that includes the initial script for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings (generating and displaying call flow outline for graphically expressing the script, Col 4 lines 19-25, the entire script being organized as a series of hierarchical topics, shown as a call flow outline with subgroups such as topics 2 and 3 which are subtopics of topic 1, Fig 4, Col 4 lines 41-47);
based a topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings, update the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow (topics dynamically become available based on the current call context, Col 5 lines 1-4, and if the conversation does not follow the default scenario, an agent by navigate by selecting a topic from the outline, Col 4 lines 53-60, allowing the agent to “hop” from e.g. Topic 1 to Topic 3, Fig 4); and
provide an assistance interface for the call representative, the assistance interface providing input features for each of a plurality of sub-flow groupings (action panel 37 provides input fields for a topic in the call flow, Col 5 lines 15-35, Fig. 3), and being configured to navigate to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings during the call session (agent my use mouse or arrow keys to navigate among topics during the call, Col 4 lines 47-64); the assistance interface enabling the call representative to interact to navigate among the plurality of sub-flow groupings during the call session (agent my use mouse or arrow keys to navigate among topics, Col 4 lines 47-64).
Thorne does not specifically mention:
based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generate an initial script;
based on the user initiating a topic, update the content flow;
automatically navigate based on a topic initiated during the call session.
Harris discloses based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generate an initial script (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033]);
based on the user initiating a topic, update the content flow (the user submits a response containing the word “Singapore”, which prompts server computer to generate a graph query with the topic “Singapore” that brings up related concepts in conceptual graph, the results used to generate follow-up questions, i.e. updating the call flow, [0048-0049]);
automatically navigate based on a topic initiated during the call session (based on the topic “Singapore”, automatically navigating using graph concept retrieval to the question “would you like to be continue the interview in Mandarin?” [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne to result in: based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user as in Harris, generate an initial script and a content flow that includes the initial script for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings as in Thorne; and based on the user initiating a topic as in Harris, the topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings as in Thorne, update the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow as in Thorne, and automatically navigate, as in Harris, to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings of Thorne, based on a topic initiated during the call session as in Harris for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Thorne and Harris do not specifically mention the assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative, the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface, the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping.
Doermann discloses an assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative (displaying script options to the agent with F1, F2, F4 keypress options the agent may press to jump to a script option, Fig 3, [0026], noting that Applicant’s specification describes “accelerator features” as keyboard keys similarly at original specification, [0067]), the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface (each keypress may be a keypress from a keyboard as well as selection of a graphical “key” with a mouse, [0053], [0026]), the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping (e.g. invocation of F4 jumps to branch 312 of the script, which is a sub-flow grouping of the call scripts, Fig 3, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne and Doermann such that the assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative, the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface, the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 15, Thorne discloses a computer-implemented method of facilitating content flow group hopping, the method being performed by one or more processors (a processor is inherent in computer work station, Col 2 lines 39-44, which provides a method for allowing agent to navigate by selecting a topic from the outline, Col 4 lines 53-60, allowing the agent to “hop” from e.g. Topic 1 to Topic 3, Fig 4) and comprising:
generating an initial script and a content flow that includes the initial script for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings (generating and displaying call flow outline for graphically expressing the script, Col 4 lines 19-25, the entire script being organized as a series of hierarchical topics, shown as a call flow outline with subgroups such as topics 2 and 3 which are subtopics of topic 1, Fig 4, Col 4 lines 41-47);
based a topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings, updating the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow (topics dynamically become available based on the current call context, Col 5 lines 1-4, and if the conversation does not follow the default scenario, an agent by navigate by selecting a topic from the outline, Col 4 lines 53-60, allowing the agent to “hop” from e.g. Topic 1 to Topic 3, Fig 4); and
provide an assistance interface for the call representative, the assistance interface providing input features for each of a plurality of sub-flow groupings (action panel 37 provides input fields for a topic in the call flow, Col 5 lines 15-35, Fig. 3), and being configured to navigate to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings during the call session (agent my use mouse or arrow keys to navigate among topics during the call, Col 4 lines 47-64); the assistance interface enabling the call representative to interact to navigate among the plurality of sub-flow groupings during the call session (agent my use mouse or arrow keys to navigate among topics, Col 4 lines 47-64).
Thorne does not specifically mention:
based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generate an initial script;
based on the user initiating a topic, update the content flow;
automatically navigate based on a topic initiated during the call session.
Harris discloses based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generate an initial script (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033]);
based on the user initiating a topic, update the content flow (the user submits a response containing the word “Singapore”, which prompts server computer to generate a graph query with the topic “Singapore” that brings up related concepts in conceptual graph, the results used to generate follow-up questions, i.e. updating the call flow, [0048-0049]);
automatically navigate based on a topic initiated during the call session (based on the topic “Singapore”, automatically navigating using graph concept retrieval to the question “would you like to be continue the interview in Mandarin?” [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne to result in: based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user as in Harris, generate an initial script and a content flow that includes the initial script for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings as in Thorne; and based on the user initiating a topic as in Harris, the topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings as in Thorne, update the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow as in Thorne, and automatically navigate, as in Harris, to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings of Thorne, based on a topic initiated during the call session as in Harris for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Thorne and Harris do not specifically mention the assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative, the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface, the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping.
Doermann discloses an assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative (displaying script options to the agent with F1, F2, F4 keypress options the agent may press to jump to a script option, Fig 3, [0026], noting that Applicant’s specification describes “accelerator features” as keyboard keys similarly at original specification, [0067]), the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface (each keypress may be a keypress from a keyboard as well as selection of a graphical “key” with a mouse, [0053], [0026]), the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping (e.g. invocation of F4 jumps to branch 312 of the script, which is a sub-flow grouping of the call scripts, Fig 3, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne and Doermann such that the assistance interface including an accelerator feature that includes multiple input functions for receiving input from the call representative, the multiple input functions including each of a designated accelerator and a selection input with the assistance interface, the accelerator feature being operable by the call representative to enter a structured input entry, or to invoke a command that navigates to a respective sub-flow grouping for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Thorne discloses the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category (e.g. Topic 1 includes subtopics Topic 2 and Topic 3, Fig 4, which are expandable, see Fig. 6, Col 5 lines 5-13).
Thorne does not specifically mention a category in a claim process.
Harris discloses a category in a claim process (a user claim related concept brought up during the claims interview process such as a concept e.g. “Singapore” considered a category which related concepts in concept graph belong to, [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne such that the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process as in Harris for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 3, Thorne does not, but Harris discloses the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033], and subsequently in response to an interview question the user submits a response containing the word “Singapore”, which prompts server computer to generate a graph query with the topic “Singapore” that brings up related concepts in conceptual graph, the results used to generate follow-up questions, i.e. dynamically updating the script, [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne such that the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 4, Thorne discloses the executed instructions cause the computing system to facilitate the call representative and the user to complete the sub-flow grouping of the content flow based on dynamically updating the initial script and proceeding through individual pages of the sub-flow grouping (as an agent completes an action panel, the action panel corresponding to the next topic in the call flow outline is displayed and the call flow outline is updated during the conversation between the user and the agent, Col 4 lines 47-56, including sub topic groupings like Topic 2 and Topic 3, updating pages of the script as shown in Fig 4, proceeding through individual panels, i.e. pages of the call flow script).
Consider claim 6, Thorne discloses the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: determine a pause point in the content flow prior to navigating to the respective sub-flow grouping (e.g. the current topic, “Call Information, Fig. 3, Col 5 lines 5-34); and when the user and the call representative have completed the sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate back to the pause point of the content flow (automatically exiting the panel to the next issue in the call flow upon completion of an issue, Col 5 lines 27-31, e.g. upon completion of “New Account”, Fig 3).
Consider claim 7, Thorne discloses the sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow (topics may exist in the Call Flow Outline which are not in the default flow and are only activated manually by the agent or programmatically by the script logic, Col 4 lines 60-63, which may include hierarchical subtopics, i.e. an island grouping, Col 4 lines 41-47).
Consider claim 9, Thorne discloses the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category (e.g. Topic 1 includes subtopics Topic 2 and Topic 3, Fig 4, which are expandable, see Fig. 6, Col 5 lines 5-13).
Thorne does not specifically mention a category in a claim process.
Harris discloses a category in a claim process (a user claim related concept brought up during the claims interview process such as a concept e.g. “Singapore” considered a category which related concepts in concept graph belong to, [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne such that the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process as in Harris for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 10, Thorne does not, but Harris discloses the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033], and subsequently in response to an interview question the user submits a response containing the word “Singapore”, which prompts server computer to generate a graph query with the topic “Singapore” that brings up related concepts in conceptual graph, the results used to generate follow-up questions, i.e. dynamically updating the script, [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne such that the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 11, Thorne discloses the executed instructions cause the computing system to facilitate the call representative and the user to complete the sub-flow grouping of the content flow based on dynamically updating the initial script and proceeding through individual pages of the sub-flow grouping (as an agent completes an action panel, the action panel corresponding to the next topic in the call flow outline is displayed and the call flow outline is updated during the conversation between the user and the agent, Col 4 lines 47-56, including sub topic groupings like Topic 2 and Topic 3, updating pages of the script as shown in Fig 4, proceeding through individual panels, i.e. pages of the call flow script).
Consider claim 13, Thorne discloses the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: determine a pause point in the content flow prior to navigating to the respective sub-flow grouping (e.g. the current topic, “Call Information, Fig. 3, Col 5 lines 5-34); and when the user and the call representative have completed the sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate back to the pause point of the content flow (automatically exiting the panel to the next issue in the call flow upon completion of an issue, Col 5 lines 27-31, e.g. upon completion of “New Account”, Fig 3).
Consider claim 14, Thorne discloses the sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow (topics may exist in the Call Flow Outline which are not in the default flow and are only activated manually by the agent or programmatically by the script logic, Col 4 lines 60-63, which may include hierarchical subtopics, i.e. an island grouping, Col 4 lines 41-47).
Consider claim 16, Thorne discloses the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category (e.g. Topic 1 includes subtopics Topic 2 and Topic 3, Fig 4, which are expandable, see Fig. 6, Col 5 lines 5-13).
Thorne does not specifically mention a category in a claim process.
Harris discloses a category in a claim process (a user claim related concept brought up during the claims interview process such as a concept e.g. “Singapore” considered a category which related concepts in concept graph belong to, [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne such that the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process as in Harris for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 17, Thorne does not, but Harris discloses the one or more processors dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033], and subsequently in response to an interview question the user submits a response containing the word “Singapore”, which prompts server computer to generate a graph query with the topic “Singapore” that brings up related concepts in conceptual graph, the results used to generate follow-up questions, i.e. dynamically updating the script, [0048-0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne such that the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic for reasons similar to those for claim 1.
Consider claim 18, Thorne discloses the one or more processors facilitate the call representative and the user to complete the sub-flow grouping of the content flow based on dynamically updating the initial script and proceeding through individual pages of the sub-flow grouping (as an agent completes an action panel, the action panel corresponding to the next topic in the call flow outline is displayed and the call flow outline is updated during the conversation between the user and the agent, Col 4 lines 47-56, including sub topic groupings like Topic 2 and Topic 3, updating pages of the script as shown in Fig 4, proceeding through individual panels, i.e. pages of the call flow script).
Consider claim 20, Thorne discloses the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: determine a pause point in the content flow prior to navigating to the respective sub-flow grouping (e.g. the current topic, “Call Information, Fig. 3, Col 5 lines 5-34); and when the user and the call representative have completed the sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate back to the pause point of the content flow (automatically exiting the panel to the next issue in the call flow upon completion of an issue, Col 5 lines 27-31, e.g. upon completion of “New Account”, Fig 3).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorne (US 6100891) in view of Harris et al. (US 20210142333), in further view of Doermann et al. (US 20200220974), in further view of George (US 20090210228).
Consider claim 5, Thorne discloses the executed instructions cause the computing system to navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping corresponding to the sub-flow grouping (as an agent completes an action panel, the action panel corresponding to the next topic in the call flow outline is displayed and the call flow outline is updated during the conversation between the user and the agent, Col 4 lines 47-56, including sub topic groupings like Topic 2 and Topic 3, automatically updating pages of the script as shown in Fig 4).
Thorne, Harris, and Doermann do not specifically mention automatically navigating the content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword.
George discloses automatically navigating a content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword (a keyword spoken by the user is recognized by voice recognition, and a script is dynamically selected and displayed based on the keyword, [0014]-[0015], the selected script considered navigation to another content flow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne, Harris, and Doermann by navigating a content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword in order to improve customer service, predictably making customers happier, as suggested by George ([0005]). The references cited are analogous art in the same field of contact centers.
Consider claim 12, Thorne discloses the executed instructions cause the computing system to navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping corresponding to the sub-flow grouping (as an agent completes an action panel, the action panel corresponding to the next topic in the call flow outline is displayed and the call flow outline is updated during the conversation between the user and the agent, Col 4 lines 47-56, including sub topic groupings like Topic 2 and Topic 3, automatically updating pages of the script as shown in Fig 4).
Thorne, Harris, and Doermann do not specifically mention automatically navigating the content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword.
George discloses automatically navigating a content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword (a keyword spoken by the user is recognized by voice recognition, and a script is dynamically selected and displayed based on the keyword, [0014]-[0015], the selected script considered navigation to another content flow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne, Harris, and Doermann by navigating a content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Consider claim 19, Thorne discloses the one or more processors navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping corresponding to the sub-flow grouping (as an agent completes an action panel, the action panel corresponding to the next topic in the call flow outline is displayed and the call flow outline is updated during the conversation between the user and the agent, Col 4 lines 47-56, including sub topic groupings like Topic 2 and Topic 3, automatically updating pages of the script as shown in Fig 4).
Thorne, Harris, and Doermann do not specifically mention automatically navigating the content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword.
George discloses automatically navigating a content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword (a keyword spoken by the user is recognized by voice recognition, and a script is dynamically selected and displayed based on the keyword, [0014]-[0015], the selected script considered navigation to another content flow).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Thorne, Harris, and Doermann by navigating a content flow based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword for reasons similar to those for claim 5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jesse Pullias whose telephone number is 571/270-5135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The examiner’s fax number is 571/270-6135.
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, Andrew Flanders can be reached on 571/272-7516.
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.
/Jesse S Pullias/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655 06/24/26
Prosecution Insights