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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. 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.
As to claims 16 and 26, it is unclear as the claims recite “… the high frequency caller was previously notified of an invitation to enroll in the IVR system for automatically providing the IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, wherein the IVR invitation is provided to the high frequency caller responsive to the high frequency caller not being determined to be have received a prior notification to enroll in the IVR system” and because claims 15 (that claim 16 depends on) and 25 (that claim 26 depends on) required displaying on a GUI information to be provided to the high frequency caller as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system then claims 16 and 26 cannot happened. It is unclear as what is the implication or outcome of claims 16 and 26? Dependent claims 17-18 and 27-28 have the same defects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claims 15, 21, 25, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieraccini et al. (2007/0165808) in view of Langevin et al. (2014/0148125).
As to claim 15, Pieraccini teaches a call processing system for providing an interactive voice response (IVR) system, comprising:
a communications interface (Fig. 1);
memory ([0021] - where Pieraccini discussed information about the previous call extracted from the database) and a controller programmed (Fig. 1; [0017] to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers (at least [0030] – calls from the same user within the window of time and calls analyzed to determine whether each belongs to the same chain of repeat calls; [0031] – the IVR searches in the call log database to determine whether the same caller has call previously);
determine reception of a call from high frequency caller (at least [0009] – where Pieraccini discussed identifying repeat callers, determining whether they are calling for the same reason as their previous call; [0030] – calls from the same user within the window of time and calls analyzed to determine whether each belongs to the same chain of repeat calls; [0031] – the IVR searches in the call log database to determine whether the same caller has call previously).
Pieraccini does not explicitly discuss display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system. However, Pieraccini teaches ([0031] – after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Langevin into the teachings of Pieraccini for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
As to claims 21 and 31, Pieraccini teaches the call processing recited in claim 15 and the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 25, wherein the controller is further programmed to retrieve from memory predicted information to be requested from the high frequency caller (retrieve from the memory predicted information to be requested from the high frequency caller prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative ([0010] – where Pieraccini discussed an action based on a defined business logic for frequent or repeat callers executed on the current call rather than restarting interaction from the beginning and determine an action such as escalation to an agent; [0021-0028, 0031] – where Pieraccini discussed searching the call log database for calls from the same caller, relevant information extracted from the call log database retrieved and determines if previous calls belong to one or more chains of repeat calls that were made for the same reason and determining the next action to take based on determining the caller as a repeat caller and retrieving previous call information from the database, hence it would have been obvious to predict information/question to be requested from the caller based upon the stored data in the memory relating to the caller); and Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller… the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific ([0063]).
As to claim 25, Pieraccini teaches a computer-implemented method for processing customer calls in a call processing system, comprising:
monitoring, in a communications interface (Fig. 1), a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers (at least [0030] – calls from the same user within the window of time and calls analyzed to determine whether each belongs to the same chain of repeat calls; [0031] – the IVR searches in the call log database to determine whether the same caller has call previously);
determining, in the communications interface (Fig. 1), reception of a call from high frequency caller (at least [0009] – where Pieraccini discussed identifying repeat callers, determining whether they are calling for the same reason as their previous call; [0030] – calls from the same user within the window of time and calls analyzed to determine whether each belongs to the same chain of repeat calls; [0031] – the IVR searches in the call log database to determine whether the same caller has call previously).
Pieraccini does not explicitly discuss displaying on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system. However, Pieraccini teaches ([0031] – after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Langevin into the teachings of Pieraccini for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
4. Claims 19-20 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieraccini and Langevin in view of Konig et al. (2015/0117632).
As to claims 19 and 29, Pieraccini and Langevin do not explicitly discuss the call processing recited in claim 15 and the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 25, wherein displayed on the GUI is a plurality of financial accounts associated with the high frequency callers from which certain information from one or more of the plurality of financial accounts selected by the high frequency caller is included in the IVR message.
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller… the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific ([0063]).
Konig teaches The IMR server 34 may be similar to an interactive voice response (IVR) server, except that the IMR server is not restricted to voice, but may cover a variety of media channels including voice. Taking voice as an example, however, the IMR server may be configured with an IMR script for querying calling customers on their needs. For example, a contact center for a bank may tell callers, via the IMR script, to "press 1" if they wish to get an account balance ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Konig into the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin for the purpose of having a more efficient system that handling call from high frequency callers that associated with different types of accounts.
As to claims 20 and 30, Langevin teaches the call processing system as recited in claim 19 and the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 29, wherein the controller is further programmed to configure the GUI to be interactive with the high frequency caller such that the high frequency caller interacts with the GUI ([0063] - the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller… the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific) and Konig teaches select the one or more of the plurality of financial accounts to be included in the IVR message ([0032] - The IMR server 34 may be similar to an interactive voice response (IVR) server, except that the IMR server is not restricted to voice, but may cover a variety of media channels including voice. Taking voice as an example, however, the IMR server may be configured with an IMR script for querying calling customers on their needs. For example, a contact center for a bank may tell callers, via the IMR script, to "press 1" if they wish to get an account balance).
5. Claims 23-24 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pieraccini and Langevin in view of Huerta et al. (2006/0247913).
As to claims 23 and 33, Pieraccini teaches the call processing recited in claim 21 and the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 31, wherein the controller is further programmed to identify repeat callers, understand whether they are calling for the same reason as their previous call, and properly disposing of the call. If the repeat caller is calling for the same reason, information from the previous call(s) is retrieved. If a previous call relating to the current call was classified by the IVR as being completed, the previous call may now be re-classified as non-completed (for quality assessment and billing purposes). An action based on a defined business logic for repeat callers may then be executed on the current call, rather than re-starting interaction from the beginning, as occurs for new callers. Exemplary actions include: escalation to an agent, continuation of the IVR where the caller left off, and attempts to resolve the issue in a different manner by the IVR or by an agent ([0010]); and Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
Pieraccini and Langevin do not explicitly discuss confirming with the caller whether the information is accurate.
Huerta teaches validate the information, confirm the information, correct the information, if necessary, and repeat the information back to the user ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Huerta into the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin for the purpose of making sure correct information included in them message before providing to the user.
As to claims 24 and 34, Pieraccini teaches the call processing recited in claim 23 and the computer-implemented method as recited in claim 33, wherein the controller is further programmed to ([0031] – after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent); and Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 22 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 17-18 and 27-28 are objected to because the depend on objected claims 16 and 26, respectively.
Double Patenting
7. 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claims 15-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,620 in view of Pieraccini et al. (2007/0165808) and Langevin et al. (2014/0148125). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘134 patent application claims are broader in scope than the claims of the ‘620 patent and the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 10,848,620 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/898,134
U.S. Patent 10,848,620
15. A call processing system for providing an interactive voice response (IVR) system, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory, and a controller programmed to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers;
determine reception of a call from a high frequency caller; and
9. A computer system for processing calls, comprising:
providing a memory and a controller programmed to:
determine reception of a telephonic call;
display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as in invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
utilize predictive analytics to determine a predicted question to be requested from the caller utilizing stored data in the memory relating to the caller;
determine an answer to the predicted question of the caller consisting of data the stored data in the memory relating to the caller; and
determine a time frequency to provide a notification to the detected caller containing the determined answer to the predicted question of the caller without necessitating the caller to initiate future telephonic calls to the communication interface regarding the predicted question.
Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,620 does not teaches monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers; display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as in invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
Pieraccini teaches assess reasons for each chain and determine if the caller is calling again for one of the reasons, and determine if the caller is calling again for the same reason as previous call; the IVR make sure that the user is calling for the same reason as the previous call ([0031] and Fig. 2, 214 and 216); and after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent ([0031]).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin into the teachings of Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,620 for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
The examiner also notes that claim 25 of the ‘134 Application respectively corresponds to Claim 1 of the ‘620 Patent, respectively.
9. Claims 25-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,296 in view of Pieraccini et al. (2007/0165808) and Langevin et al. (2014/0148125). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘134 applicant claims are broader in scope than the claims of the ‘296 patent and the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 10,462,296 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/898,134
U.S. Patent 10,462,296
25. A computer-implemented method for processing customer calls in a call processing system, comprising:
monitoring, in a communications interface, a frequency of call activity for a plurality of customer callers;
determining, in the communications interface, reception of a call from a high frequency caller; and
1. A computer method for processing calls, comprising:
providing a memory including the contents and frequency of previous telephonic conversations from a caller, and a controller programmed to:
determine reception of a telephonic call from a caller having one or more accounts associated with the caller;
displaying, on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
utilize predictive analytics to determine a predicted question to be requested from the caller utilizing stored data correlating to previous conversations associated with the caller stored in memory;
determine an answer to the predicted question of the caller consisting of data from the one or more accounts associated to the caller; and
determine a time frequency to provide a notification to the detected caller containing the determined answer to the predicted question of the caller without necessitating the caller to initiate future telephonic calls to the communication interface regarding the predicted question utilizing the stored contents and frequency of previous telephonic calls associated with the caller.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,296 does not teaches monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers; display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as in invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
Pieraccini teaches assess reasons for each chain and determine if the caller is calling again for one of the reasons, and determine if the caller is calling again for the same reason as previous call; the IVR make sure that the user is calling for the same reason as the previous call ([0031] and Fig. 2, 214 and 216); and after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent ([0031]).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin into the teachings of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,462,296 for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
The examiner also notes that claim 29 of the ‘134 Application respectively corresponds to Claim 7 of the ‘296 Patent.
10. Claims 15-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,187,524 in view of Pieraccini et al. (2007/0165808) and Langevin et al. (2014/0148125). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘134 applicant claims are broader in scope than the claims of the ‘524 patent and the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 10,187,524 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/898,134
U.S. Patent 10,187,524
15. A call processing system for providing an interactive voice response (IVR) system, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory, and a controller programmed to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers;
determine reception of a call from a high frequency caller; and
1. A call processing, comprising:
a communications interface configured to receive telephonic calls;
a memory including the contents and frequency of previous telephonic conversations from a caller, and a controller programmed to:
determine reception of a telephonic call from a caller having one or more accounts associated with the caller;
display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
utilize predictive analytics to determine a predicted question to be requested from the caller utilizing data correlating to previous conversations associated with the caller stored in memory;
determine an answer to the predicted question of the caller consisting of data from the one or more accounts associated to the caller; and
determine a time frequency to provide a notification to the detected caller containing the determined answer to the predicted question of the caller without necessitating the caller to initiate future telephonic calls to the communication interface regarding the predicted question utilizing the stored contents and frequency of previous telephonic calls associated with the caller.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,187,524 does not teaches monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers; display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as in invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
Pieraccini teaches assess reasons for each chain and determine if the caller is calling again for one of the reasons, and determine if the caller is calling again for the same reason as previous call; the IVR make sure that the user is calling for the same reason as the previous call ([0031] and Fig. 2, 214 and 216); and after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent ([0031]).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin into the teachings of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,187,524 for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
11. Claims 15-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,164 in view of Pieraccini et al. (2007/0165808) and Langevin et al. (2014/0148125). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘134 applicant claims are broader in scope than the claims of the ‘164 patent and the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 9,648,164 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/898,134
U.S. Patent 9,648,164
15. A call processing system, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory, and a controller programmed to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers;
determine reception of a call from a high frequency caller; and
1. A call processing, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory and a controller programmed to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for each caller;
determine reception of a call from high frequency caller having one or more accounts associated with the determined high frequency caller;
display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
utilize predictive analytics to determine a predicted question to be requested from the high frequency caller from the determined one or more accounts associated with the high frequency caller via information retrieved from the memory wherein the memory stores previous conversations associated with the high frequency caller;
determine an answer to the predicted question of the high frequency caller consisting of data from the one or more accounts associated to the high frequency caller; and
provide a notification to the detected high frequency caller containing the determined answer to the predicted question of the high frequency caller prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,164 does not teaches monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers; display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as in invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
Pieraccini teaches assess reasons for each chain and determine if the caller is calling again for one of the reasons, and determine if the caller is calling again for the same reason as previous call; the IVR make sure that the user is calling for the same reason as the previous call ([0031] and Fig. 2, 214 and 216); and after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent ([0031]).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin into the teachings of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,648,164 for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
The examiner also notes that claims 19, 25, 29 of the ‘134 Application respectively corresponds to Claims 4, 8, 9 of the ‘164 Patent.
12. Claims 15-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,864 in view of Pieraccini et al. (2007/0165808) and Langevin et al. (2014/0148125). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘134 patent application claims are broader in scope than the claims of the ‘864 patent and the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 12,132,864 with obvious wording variations. When claims in the pending application are broader than the ones in the patent, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. Also, omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPA 184 (1963).
U.S. Patent Application 18/898,134
U.S. Patent 12,132,864
15. A call processing system for providing an interactive voice response (IVR) system, comprising:
a communications interface;
a memory, and a controller programmed to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers;
determine reception of a call from a high frequency caller; and
1. A call processing system, comprising:
providing a memory and a controller programmed to:
a communications interface;
a memory, and a controller programmed to:
monitor a frequency of call activity for a plurality of callers;
determine reception of a call from a high frequency caller; and a telephonic call;
display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as an invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
retrieve from the memory predicted information to be requested from the high frequency caller prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative;
determine a time frequency to provide a notification to the detected caller containing the determined answer to the predicted question of the caller without necessitating the caller to initiate future telephonic calls to the communication interface regarding the predicted question.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,864 does not teaches display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high display on a graphic user interface (GUI) on a computing display associated with the high frequency caller, certain information to be provided to the high frequency caller in an IVR message prior to the high frequency caller being voice connected with a company service representative, as in invitation to the high frequency caller for enrollment in the IVR system.
Pieraccini teaches assess reasons for each chain and determine if the caller is calling again for one of the reasons, and determine if the caller is calling again for the same reason as previous call; the IVR make sure that the user is calling for the same reason as the previous call ([0031] and Fig. 2, 214 and 216); and after determining with the high frequency caller/user determine if the user is calling again for one of the reasons the same as previous call asking the user for more information about the problem, enticing the user to continue resolving the issue in the IVR, and escalating the call to a live agent ([0031]).
Langevin teaches the visual IVR program would displays a variety of choices available to the caller. Since the visual IVR program provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific. An informational message is provided to the caller informing the caller when the office is open and/or providing other information that may be of assistance to the caller at 408. This information message may be a visual message, an audio message, or a combination of visual and audio messages. The intent is to provide the caller with an option to talk with a service provider agent from the visual IVR home page, and from each of the various tiers of visual displays, so that the caller has a satisfying experience using the visual IVR system and may elect to speak with a service provider agent at any point as they progress through the IVR system tiers (abstract; [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pieraccini and Langevin into the teachings of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,864 for the purpose of having the visual IVR program displays a variety of choices available to the caller and provides an option to talk with a service provider agent at substantially all of the visual displays of the various visual IVR tiers, the choices provided to the caller may vary to be more subject matter specific.
The examiner also notes that claims 19, 25, 29 of the ‘134 Application respectively corresponds to Claims 5, 10, 14 of the ‘864 Patent, respectively.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights