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 application 18/808,819, which was filed 08/19/24. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been considered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,495,113.
Specifically, a comparison of the claims of the present application with claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,495,113 yields the following:
(Present application) (US Patent 12,495,113)
1. A computing system comprising: a network communication interface; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to: based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, 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; based on the user initiating 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.
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic.
4. The computing system of claim 3, wherein 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.
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to automatically navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the sub-flow grouping.
6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein 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; 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.
7. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow.
8. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to: based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, 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; based on the user initiating 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.
9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
10. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic.
11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein 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.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to automatically navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the sub-flow grouping.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein 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; 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.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow.
15. A computer-implemented method of facilitating content flow group hopping, the method being performed by one or more processors and comprising: based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, 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; based on the user initiating 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.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein 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.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein one or more processors automatically navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the sub-flow grouping.
20. The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining a pause point in the content flow prior to navigating to the respective sub-flow grouping; and when the user and the call representative have completed the sub-flow grouping, automatically navigating back to the pause point of the content flow.
1. A computing system comprising:
a network communication interface;
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the network communication interface; and
a memory, communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, for storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receive an initial set of claim data for a user-related incident;
based on the initial set of claim data for the user-related incident, generate each of (i) a content flow for a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings; and (ii) a dynamic script that is based at least in part on the content flow;
monitor, in real-time, the call session, by performing voice recognition on audio communicated during the call session;
detect, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session; and
based on the detected topic initiated by the user, determine a pause point representing a current progress of the content flow, navigate the content flow to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings that relate to the detected topic, generate the dynamic script based on the respective sub-flow grouping, and upon detecting completion of the respective sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate the content flow back to the pause point.
2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of sub-flow groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
1. … a dynamic script that is based at least in part on the content flow;
monitor, in real-time, the call session, by performing voice recognition on audio communicated during the call session;
detect, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session; and
based on the detected topic initiated by the user
4. The computing system of claim 3, wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to facilitate the call representative and the user to complete the respective sub-flow grouping of the detected topic based on the dynamic script and the generated set of input accelerators.
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the monitoring, by performing the voice recognition includes detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the respective sub-flow grouping.
6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to:
update the dynamic script based on the pause point.
1. …based on the detected topic initiated by the user, determine a pause point representing a current progress of the content flow, navigate the content flow to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings that relate to the detected topic, generate the dynamic script based on the respective sub-flow grouping, and upon detecting completion of the respective sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate the content flow back to the pause point
7. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the respective sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow.
8. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to:
receive an initial set of claim data for a user-related incident;
based on the initial set of claim data for the user-related incident, generate each of (i) a content flow for a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings; and (ii) a dynamic script that is based at least in part on the content flow;
monitor, in real-time, the call session, by performing voice recognition on audio communicated during the call session;
detect, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session; and
based on the detected a topic initiated by the user during the call session, determine a pause point representing a current progress of the content flow, navigate the content flow to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings that relate to the detected topic, generate the dynamic script based on the respective sub-flow grouping, and upon detecting completion of the respective sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate the content flow back to the pause point.
9. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the plurality of sub-flow groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
8. …a dynamic script that is based at least in part on the content flow;
monitor, in real-time, the call session, by performing voice recognition on audio communicated during the call session;
detect, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session
11. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 10, wherein 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 the dynamic script and the generated set of input accelerators.
12. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the monitoring, by voice recognition, includes detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the respective sub-flow grouping.
13. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to:
update the dynamic script based on the pause point.
8. ….detect, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session; and
based on the detected a topic initiated by the user during the call session, determine a pause point representing a current progress of the content flow, navigate the content flow to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings that relate to the detected topic, generate the dynamic script based on the respective sub-flow grouping, and upon detecting completion of the respective sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate the content flow back to the pause point
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 8, wherein the respective sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow.
15. A computer-implemented method of facilitating content flow group hopping, the method being performed by one or more processors and comprising:
receive an initial set of claim data for a user-related incident;
based on the initial set of claim data for the user-related incident, generating each of (i) a content flow for a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings; and (ii) a dynamic script that is based at least in part on the content flow;
monitoring, in real-time, the call session, by performing voice recognition on audio communicated during the call session;
detecting, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session; and
based on the detected topic initiated by the user during the call session, determining a pause point representing a current progress of the content flow, navigating the content flow to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings that relate to the detected topic, generating the dynamic script based on the respective sub-flow grouping, and upon detecting completion of the respective sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate the content flow back to the pause point.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of sub-flow groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
15. …a dynamic script that is based at least in part on the content flow;
monitoring, in real-time, the call session, by performing voice recognition on audio communicated during the call session;
detecting, based on the monitoring, a topic initiated by the user during the call session; and
based on the detected topic initiated by the user during the call session
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the one or more processors facilitate the call representative and the user to complete the respective sub-flow grouping of the detected topic based on the dynamic script and the generated set of input accelerators.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the monitoring includes detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the respective sub-flow grouping.
20. The method of claim 15, further comprising:
updating the dynamic script based on the pause point.
15. … navigating the content flow to a respective sub-flow grouping of the plurality of sub-flow groupings that relate to the detected topic, generating the dynamic script based on the respective sub-flow grouping, and upon detecting completion of the respective sub-flow grouping, automatically navigate the content flow back to the pause point.
As the table above demonstrates, although the language is not identical each limitation of claims 1-20 of the present application is found in claims 1-20 of US Patent 12,495,113, and therefore, the claims are anticipated.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, 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; based on the user initiating 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”.
The limitation of based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, 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 drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, 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” in the context of this claim encompasses reviewing a paper sheet of claim data and writing down an initial script and content flow that includes the initial script on a sheet of paper for a call representative to utilize in a call session with the user, the content flow comprising a plurality of sub-flow groupings.
Similarly, the limitation of “based on the user initiating 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”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “based on the user initiating 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” in the context of this claim encompasses listening to the conversation between the call representative and the user and based on hearing the user initiating a topic corresponding to a respective sub-flow grouping from the plurality of sub-flow groupings, update the content flow on the sheet of paper to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites four additional elements – “A computing system”, “a network communication interface”, “one or more processors”, and “a memory storing instructions”. The computing elements in this step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing system, a generic network communication interface, a generic one or more processors”, and a generic memory storing instructions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer elements. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing device to perform the generating and updating amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Specifically with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Alice/Mayo test, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitations that are not mental steps.
Specifically with respect to Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, “the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (there is no inventive concept in the claim)”. MPEP 2106.05 Il. There are no limitations in claim 1 outside of the judicial exception. As a whole, there does not appear to contain any inventive concept. As discussed above, claim 1 is a mental process that pertains to the mental process of generating and updating a call script, which can be performed entirely by a human with physical aids.
Dependent claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1 above.
Generally, claims 2-7 merely recite additional steps for generating and updating a call script, all of which could be performed mentally or by writing down text with a pen and paper, and do not amount to anything more than substantially the same abstract idea as explained with respect to claim 1.
Specifically:
Claim 2 recites “the plurality of content groupings is arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process” which could be performed by writing down the plurality of content groupings arranged in the content flow by category in a claim process.
Claim 3 recites “dynamically update the initial script based on the user initiating the topic” which could be performed by listening to the user initiating the topic and dynamically update the initial script on the sheet of paper using the pen.
Claim 4 recites “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” which could be performed by mentally listening to the call and dynamically writing down updates to the call script as the call proceeds through pages of the script.
Claim 5 recites “ automatically navigate the content flow to the sub-flow grouping based on performing voice recognition on the user and detecting the user voicing a keyword corresponding to the sub-flow grouping” which could be performed by mentally listening to the conversation for keywords from the user and automatically turning to a page of the call script for the agent that pertains to the keyword heard.
Claim 6 recites “determine a pause point in the content flow prior to navigating to the respective sub-flow grouping; 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” which could be performed by pausing the display of pages of the script to the agent, displaying pages corresponding to sub-flow groupings, and then automatically displaying the main page again when the sub-flow is completed.
Claim 7 recites “ the sub-flow grouping comprises an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow” which could be performed by mentally writing down call script pages of an island grouping that is not required for completing an information gathering process corresponding to the content flow.
In sum, claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and further recite mental processes as explained above. None of the additional limitations recited in claims 2-7 amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claim 1. Nor do any limitations in claims 2-7 (a) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or (b) amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2-7 are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Moreover, while claim 8 recites generic computing components (e.g., computing system, one or more processors, instructions), such components are only claimed at a high-level of generality and are not sufficient to render the claim subject matter eligible for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 9-14 depend from claim 8, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 8, and correspond to system claims 2-7, and so these claims are rejected on the same grounds as claims 8 and 2-7 above.
Claim 15 is directed to a method that corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons set for the above with respect to claim 1. While claim 15 recites generic computer components (computer-implemented, one or more processors), such generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15, do not remedy any of the deficiencies of claim 15, and correspond to system claims 2-6, and so these claims are rejected on the same grounds as claims 15 and 2-6 above.
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).
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).
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.
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]).
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 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.
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).
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.
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]).
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 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).
Thorne does not specifically mention:
based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generating an initial script;
based on the user initiating a topic, updating the content flow.
Harris discloses based on an initial set of claim data for a claim event of a user, generating an initial script (generating an interview script based on user claim information, [0032]-[0033]);
based on the user initiating a topic, updating 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]).
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, 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 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, updating the content flow to enable the call representative to hop to the respective sub-flow grouping within the content flow as in Thorne 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 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 and Harris 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 and Harris 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 and Harris 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 and Harris 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 and Harris 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 and Harris 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12395588 Xiang discloses creating a database of contact center response records
US 20210136222 Brown discloses adapting customer service agent scripts in real time
20120317038 Erbey discloses dynamically optimizing and modifying scripts to use with customers in real time
US 20200092419 Muralli discloses adapting a script used for an agent when a customer calls about an insurance claim based on customer emotion, see [0058]
US 20070140183 Nanavati discloses call flow modification based on user situation
US 11862172 Brandt discloses a proactive listening bot that provides in-call advice
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 02/20/26