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 action is responsive to response filed April 16, 2026.
This application was filed 10/4/2024, and is a 371 of PCT filed 4/3/2023, with foreign priority to Indian application filed 4/4/2022.
Status of Claims
A preliminary amendment of the claims was filed on the application filing date of 10/4/2024, and is acknowledged.
Applicant responded to the previous Restriction/Unity Requirement on 4/16/26 and Applicant electing Group I (claims 1-9), with traversal, for examination. Applicant made the election “for procedural purposes only”, and did not present arguments disputing the merits of the lack of unity notice. The Restriction/Unity Requirement is hereby made Final.
Accordingly, Group II (claims 10-20) is withdrawn.
Claims 1-9 remain pending.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 10/4/24 are acknowledged.
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, 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omiya (US Publication 20110038474) in view of Beilis et al (US Publication 20180375998).
In reference to claim 1, Omiya teaches a computing system for automated tracking of communication sessions for remote users, the computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations (see at least ¶s 138-141), the operations comprising:
obtaining initial data, wherein the initial data is associated with a begin time of a communication session, wherein the communication session comprises a first user; (see at least ¶s 151,165, which teaches obtaining status data associated with a begin time of a communication session, where the session comprises a user operator)
determining a threshold time has elapsed without receiving end data, wherein the end data is associated with an end time; (see at least ¶s 169-171, which teaches determining a threshold elapsed time associated the session and without receiving end data of the session)
generating a first notification and a second notification based on the threshold time lapsing, wherein the first notification comprises one or more status indicators; (see at least ¶s 171,173, which teaches generating warning notifications based on exceeding the threshold value, the notifications comprising flag indicators)
transmitting, via a network connection, the first notification; transmitting, via the network connection the second notification; (see at least ¶s 136 & 173,174, which teaches a server transmitting display notifications to a supervisor terminal. Also see ¶s 137,179, which teaches the server transmitting data to the supervisor terminal via a web connection)
generating session data, wherein the session data comprises information associated with the communication session; and storing the session data (see at least ¶s 165-167, which teaches generating and storing session data related to the communication session).
Omiya fails to explicitly teach transmitting the first notification to the first user; and transmitting, the second notification to a second user. However, Beilis teaches contact center management and performance monitoring (including session hold times), and discloses transmitting alert notifications to a supervising agent, team members, subordinates, and any other user subscribed to receive alerts (see Beilis, at least Background and ¶ 92 & ¶ 93 lines 10-25). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Omiya based on the teachings of Beilis for the purpose of a contact center provider to enable multiple users to evaluate relevant metrics related to their business operations.
In reference to claim 2, Omiya teaches obtaining multiple session data items for multiple operators, and determining elapsed threshold times for each of the communication sessions for the operators (see Omiya, at least ¶s 151-154).
In reference to claim 3, Beilis teaches the session data is descriptive of a hold time associated with the session and the user operator, and further teaches transmitting multiple notifications to users subscribed to the notification alerts, see Beilis at least ¶s 40,50 & ¶s 92,93. It would have been obvious for one been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Omiya based on the teachings of Beilis for the purpose as given in claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 4, Omiya teaches the session data is obtained and displayed form a remote desktop (see Omiya, at least ¶s 164-166,173).
In reference to claim 5, Omiya teaches the indicators are descriptive of a threshold exceeded status of the communication session (see Omiya, at least ¶s 171,174,177).
In reference to claim 7, Omiya teaches the users are different and in different locations (see Omiya, at least ¶s 134,135 & Fig 1).
In reference to claim 8, Omiya teaches the computing device is associated with the first user (see Omiya, at least ¶s 134,135 & Fig 1).
Claims 6,9 are slight variations of the rejected claims above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights