DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 4/15/2026. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued with regards to the previous 101 rejection “Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertion. Amended claim 1, under its broadest interpretation, is directed to a technical solution to solve the technical problem of providing means to realize support for a specific task. According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), "A Claim With Limitation(s) That Cannot Practically be Performed in the Human Mind Does Not Recite a Mental Process. Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See ... SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 94 USPQ2d 1607 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that 'could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind')." (Emphasis added).” The examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is unpersuasive at least because the Examiner identified the abstract idea category as a method of organizing human activity, and had identified that the claims recite support center scheduling constituting an abstract idea related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Yet, applicant’s arguments only address mental processes. As such, the applicant has not identified error in disputing the Examiner’s characterization of the abstract idea.
The applicant has also argued “Amended claim 1 recites the limitations of "when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button." (Emphasis added). At least the above limitations cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human mind cannot practically perform "providing a link button and an additional message window." Applying the rule in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), claim 1 does not fall into the grouping of mental process.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments here as well. Again the claims were identified as being directed to organizing human activity in a call/contact center. Specifically, automatically identifying a chat partner for an operator based on organizational hierarchy information, and managing inquiry messages between users performing specific tasks. These are human organizational and managerial concepts.
The amendment adds the limitation “wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.” The amendment does not alter the abstract ide. The core concept of the claim remains directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional of a link button and second window merely implements this organizational method using generic and conventional user interface elements and the claims remain directed to an abstract idea and not a technical improvement.
The applicant has argued that the claims are integrated into a practical application “Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), amended claim 1 recites specific improvements to the technical field of providing means to realize support for a specific task. For example, amended claim 1 recites limitations of "when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button." (Emphasis added). Additionally, these data analysis steps are different from "a claim to 'collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,' where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A." (id.; 48 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016); emphasis added). Contrarily to Electric Power Group, amended claim 1 recites detailed features (e.g., "when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button" etc.), which are beyond a high-level of generality.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. To integrate the judicial exception into a practical application the claim must apply, rely on, or use the exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Applicant’s claims are not analogous with Electric Power Group. Electric Power Group addressed whether claims reciting data collection, analysis, and display at a high level of generality constituted a mental process. However, the claims here are rejected as being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed concept as a whole is directed to a judicial exception and there are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than that exception. Displaying a second message window containing a linked prior inquiry message is a conventional UI display function. Nothing in the specification establishes that the link button/ second window achieves a technical improvement to how computers process, store, or render information. As can be seen in applicant’s specification, this feature appears to be only exist in “modified example 1.” Retrieving and displaying a related message in response to a button press is a conventional computer operation that implements the abstract idea.
The applicant has also argued “MPEP § 2106.05(a) further explains that "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology . .. In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim 'as a whole,' in other words, the claim should be evaluated 'as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps.' When performing this evaluation, examiners should be 'careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100." (Emphasis added). Applying the rules of MPEP here, claim 1 recites limitations of "when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button." Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea even if one were to assume that claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Again as was stated above the abstract idea that was cited was Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity. Unlike McRO applicant’s claims do not recite a specific technical rule set that achieves an improvement in a computer based technology. Instead the claims recite the abstract idea of managing call center support interactions that then append generic UI constructs with a link button and a message window which are conventional computer interface elements that are known in the field.
The applicant has argued “Applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(a), amended claim 1 recites a particular solution to address the computer-centric challenge of providing means to realize support for a specific task. For example, claim 1 recites "when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button." (Emphasis added).” The examiner respectfully disagrees. A link button that pens a second window displaying related content is not a new concept. The applicant has not provided evidence that providing a link button to display a related message window is anything other than the application of computer functionality (using a computer as a tool) to implement an abstract idea. The examiner has updated the previous 101 in view of applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the previous 102 and 103 rejections the applicant has amended the claims to include additional limitations which required further search and consideration. An updated prior art was conducted and an updated rejection is below.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to an apparatus, claim 11 is directed to a method, and claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium. Therefore, claims 1-12 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 11, 12 recite call center scheduling and support, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “store organization information indicating a plurality of users belonging to the organization, where the plurality of users includes a user and another user; and when the user initiates … a chat about supporting the specific task being performed by the user, automatically identify, based on the organization information, said another user who will be a partner of the chat for the user.” Claim 11 recites abstract limitations including “storing organization information…, the organization information representing a plurality of users belonging to the organizations, where the plurality of users include a user and another user; and when the user initiates …a chat about supporting the specific task being performed by the user, automatically identifying based on the organization information, said another user who will be a partner of the chat for the user.” Claim 12 recites abstract limitations including “perform the support method of claim 11.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “a processor,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “a processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 8, 10, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 11, 12 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is “A support apparatus for supporting a specific task, the support apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor… , a user interface… a first message window is displayed….wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.” Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of “a support apparatus... a storage…a user interface…a first message window is displayed….wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.” Claim 12 recites limitations performed “A non-transitory recording medium storing a program that, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform the support.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 8 introduces the additional element of “generate display information of a screen for displaying the voice recognition texts and the messages, which are associated with one another.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 10 introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions further case the processor to generate the display information of the screen that is a screen on which the voice recognition texts or the messages are not displayed, and wherein the screen includes one or more link buttons for displaying the voice recognition texts or the messages that are not displayed.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 11, 12 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is “A support apparatus for supporting a specific task, the support apparatus comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor… , a user interface… a first message window is displayed….wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.” Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of “a support apparatus... a storage…a user interface…a first message window is displayed….wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.” Claim 12 recites limitations performed “A non-transitory recording medium storing a program that, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform the support.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 8 introduces the additional element of “generate display information of a screen for displaying the voice recognition texts and the messages, which are associated with one another.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 10 introduces the additional element of “wherein the instructions further case the processor to generate the display information of the screen that is a screen on which the voice recognition texts or the messages are not displayed, and wherein the screen includes one or more link buttons for displaying the voice recognition texts or the messages that are not displayed.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or display data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicant has newly amended in “wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.” Although the applicant has support for link buttons and chat messages (¶ 93-96) and inquires (¶ 22, 74) the applicant does not have support for an “inquiry message” , a link button being provided and a second message window displayed upon pressing of a link specifically when a previous message inquiry is being referenced, and where the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, the phrase "inquiry message" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what an inquiry message is. Is it the same as a chat message or inquiry speech. It is unclear what an inquiry message means.
Regarding claim 1, 11, the phrase “wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation is doing. Specifically it appears as though the claim is referencing a previous inquiry message but then displaying a new inquiry message corresponding to a button. It is unclear if the second window is displaying a previous inquiry, a new inquiry, or information about a link button. Appropriate clarification is requested.
The claims that depend upon the previously rejected claims inherit the rejection of the previous claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivasubramanian et al. (US 20210158235 A1) in view of Gaetano et al. (US 20140282083 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sivasubramanian teaches a processor, a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to (¶ 181-188, 192, 230, 256, 261);
store organization information indicating a plurality of users belonging to the organization, where the plurality of users includes a user and another user (¶ 162-165, a supervisor being responsible for overseeing customer contacts and for managing a group of agents.);
and when the user initiates a user interface of a chat about supporting the specific task being performed by the user, a first message window is displayed and automatically identify, based on the organization information, said another user who will be a partner of the chat for the user (¶ 162-165, a supervisor being responsible for overseeing customer contacts and for managing a group of agents. ¶ 36, the supervisor receives an alert to assist. ¶ 49, 114-115, 156, 164, discloses a supervisor that receives an alert. Abstract, Fig. 13, 16, ¶ 157, 153, disclose a first message type window).
Sivasubramanian does not specifically teach wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.
However, Gaetano teaches wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button (¶ 31-35, disclose a button that can be pushed for the operator to inquire information from a third person i.e. supervisor. ¶ 36-39, discloses further assistance help).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sivasubramanian to include/perform wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button, as taught/suggested by Gaetano. This known technique is applicable to the system of Sivasubramanian as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to employee/operator communications in a contact center. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Gaetano would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Gaetano to the teachings of Sivasubramanian would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such link button features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the system to assign an additional supervisor to help when needed and ultimately help the customer.
Regarding claim 2, Sivasubramanian teaches the support apparatus according to wherein the identifying operation further includes identifying said another user who belongs to a section of the organization, to which the user belongs, and who monitors a task of the user, and identifying the identified another user as the partner of the chat (¶ 36, the supervisor receives an alert to assist. ¶ 49, 114-115, 156, 164, discloses a supervisor that receives an alert. Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Sivasubramanian teaches wherein the specific task includes responding to a phone call in a contact center or a call center, and wherein the identifying operation further includes ,when an operator initiates a chat with another user, identifying a supervisor belonging to a section of the organization to which the operator belongs with reference to the organization information, and identifying the identified supervisor as the partner of the chat (¶ 36, the supervisor receives an alert to assist. ¶ 49, 114-115, 156, 164, discloses a supervisor that receives an alert. Abstract, ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 5, Sivasubramanian teaches generate knowledge information that is composed of question sentences and answer sentences based on voice recognition texts that are a voice recognition result of a voice call between two users, and messages of the chat sent during the voice call (¶ 42, discloses voice characteristic recognition. ¶ 54, discloses themes and trend identification from conversations. ¶ 76, 104, 179).
Regarding claim 6, Sivasubramanian teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor after associating the voice recognition texts and the messages in chronological order, extract the question sentences and the answer sentences from the voice recognition texts and the messages based on nature of the specific task; and generate the knowledge information using the extracted question sentences and the extracted answer sentences (¶ 42-45, discloses finding trends in the customer calls. ¶ 72-73, 113, discloses analyzing data from a certain time period. ¶ 115, 119, 54).
Regarding claim 7, Sivasubramanian teaches wherein the specific task includes responding to a phone call in a contact center or a call center (¶ 40, 43, 51-53, 83, discloses responding to a call at a call center),
wherein the instruction further case the processor to extract, among the voice recognition texts appearing before a first message of the messages, a voice recognition text and the first message as the question sentences, where the voice recognition text represents at least one of: an inquiry speech of a customer, a question speech of a customer, a repetition speech of an operator for the inquiry speech, and a repetition speech of the operator for the question speech (¶ 73-74, discloses text to speech, transcripts by sentence and time. ¶ 219-221, disclose a task count. ¶ 40, 53, 83, 164, discloses answers to customers questions. ¶ 49, discloses repeated customer requests.);
and extract the answer sentences that includes the massages sent by the supervisor appearing after the message extracted as the question sentence, and the voice recognition texts appearing after an end of the chat, where the voice recognition texts represent an explanatory speech of the operator (¶ 34, discloses extracting insights from customer conversations. ¶ 42, 44, discloses extracting call characteristics. ¶ 169, discloses transcription at the end of the call).
Regarding claim 8, Sivasubramanian teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: associate voice recognition texts and messages of the chat during the voice call in chronological order, where the voice recognition texts are a voice recognition result of the voice call between the two users (¶ 73-74, discloses text to speech, transcripts by sentence and time. ¶ 219-221, disclose a task count. ¶ 40, 53, 83, 164, discloses answers to customers questions. ¶ 36, 42, 81);
and generate display information of a screen for displaying the voice recognition texts and the messages, which are associated with one another (¶ 44, discloses displaying themes in ranked order. ¶ 115, discloses a display for a supervisor. ¶ 136, 151-155. Fig. 17).
Regarding claim 9, Sivasubramanian teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to associate the voice recognition texts and the messages that are processed by a predetermined filtering process in chronological order (¶ 36, 39, 42, 115, discloses filtering the transcribed calls. ¶ 45, 97, 113, 115, discloses analyzing data over a period of time. ¶ 124, 135, 146, 149).
Regarding claim 10, Sivasubramanian teaches wherein the instructions further case the processor to generate the display information of the screen that is a screen on which the voice recognition texts or the messages are not displayed, and wherein the screen includes one or more link buttons for displaying the voice recognition texts or the messages that are not displayed (Fig. 7-10, 14, display link buttons for accessing messages. ¶ 122-123, discloses clicking on a link to play audio and/or access speech-to-text. ¶153-154).
Regarding claim 11, Sivasubramanian teaches a method for supporting a specific task by a support apparatus, the method comprising: storing organization information in a storage (¶ 181-188, 192, 230, 256, 261);
the organization information representing a plurality of users belonging to the organizations, where the plurality of users include a user and another user (¶ 162-165, a supervisor being responsible for overseeing customer contacts and for managing a group of agents.);
and when the user initiates a user interface of a chat about supporting the specific task being performed by the user, a first message window is displayed and automatically identifying based on the organization information, said another user who will be a partner of the chat for the user (¶ 162-165, a supervisor being responsible for overseeing customer contacts and for managing a group of agents. ¶ 36, the supervisor receives an alert to assist. ¶ 49, 114-115, 156, 164, discloses a supervisor that receives an alert. Abstract, Fig. 13, 16, ¶ 157, 153, disclose a first message type window).
Sivasubramanian does not specifically teach wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button.
However, Gaetano teaches wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button (¶ 31-35, disclose a button that can be pushed for the operator to inquire information from a third person i.e. supervisor. ¶ 36-39, discloses further assistance help).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sivasubramanian to include/perform wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button, as taught/suggested by Gaetano. This known technique is applicable to the system of Sivasubramanian as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to employee/operator communications in a contact center. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Gaetano would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Gaetano to the teachings of Sivasubramanian would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such link button features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein when a previous inquiry message is being referenced, a link button is provided and a second message window is displayed upon pressing the link button, wherein the second message window displays a new inquiry message corresponding to the link button would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the system to assign an additional supervisor to help when needed and ultimately help the customer.
Regarding claim 12, Sivasubramanian teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a program that, when executed on a computer, causes the computer to perform the support method of claim 11 (¶ 64, 79, 181-188, 192, 230, 256, 261). The other limitations of claim 11 (¶ 162-165, a supervisor being responsible for overseeing customer contacts and for managing a group of agents. ¶ 36, the supervisor receives an alert to assist. ¶ 49, 114-115, 156, 164, discloses a supervisor that receives an alert. Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivasubramanian et al. (US 20210158235 A1) in view of Gaetano et al. (US 20140282083 A1) in further view of McCormack et al. (US 20150098560 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sivasubramanian teaches the limitations of claim 2, but does not specifically teach wherein the identified another user is not available.
However, McCormack teaches when the identified another user is not available for the chat, identifying yet another user belonging to a section of the organization that is at one level higher than the section of the organization to which the user belongs, identify the identified yet another user as the partner of the chat (¶ 53-54, 60-62, discloses the assignment of supervisors and specifically when a matched supervisor is unavailable. ¶ 57-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Sivasubramanian to include/perform wherein the identified another user is not available, as taught/suggested by McCormack. This known technique is applicable to the system of Sivasubramanian as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to assigning employees in a contact center. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of McCormack would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of McCormack to the teachings of Sivasubramanian would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such another user features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the identified another user is not available would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the system to assign an additional supervisor to help reduce wait times and ultimately help the customer.
Additional pertinent prior art includes Naka et al. (US 20180286405 A1) which discloses a system for supervisors to keep track of conversations between customers and operators in real time for appropriately coping with troubles and customer complaints in situations where at a call center. Lowry et al. (US 20130176413 A1) discloses monitoring communication of contacts for identifying contacts for potential supervision. Koga (US 20170078486 A1) discloses call center information tracking.
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights