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 the preliminary amendment filed on 8/20/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 1-12 are amended. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled.
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 relationship between a hierarchical structure of an organization and 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 relationship between a hierarchical structure of organizations and 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.” Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of “a support apparatus... a storage…a user interface.” 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.” Claim 11 further recites the additional elements of “a support apparatus... a storage…a user interface.” 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as being anticipated by Sivasubramanian et al. (US 20210158235 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 relationship between a hierarchical structure of an organization and 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, 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).
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 relationship between a hierarchical structure of organizations and 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, 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).
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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
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