DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on June 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12, 14-16 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated due to claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the calculated EPS" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemm (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0179708), and further in view of Vyas (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0414578), and further in view of Chandrakant (US Patent No. 10,728,392).
Regarding claim 1, Klemm teaches a computerized-method for handling emergency (urgent) digital interactions in a contact center having agents handling concurrent interactions (Fig. 1 item 112) (Paragraphs 0020-0031), said computerized-method comprising:
for each agent in the contact center:
(i) monitoring each real-time digital-interaction of an agent with a customer, that was routed by an Advanced Contact Distributor (ACD) application (Paragraph 0020 contact center), wherein the agent is concurrently handling two or more interactions via a User Interface (UI) (Fig. 3A, Paragraphs 0039-0040 Agent Workflow Panel with Calls Currently In Progress) that is associated to an application for handling concurrent interactions (Paragraphs 0044-0046, 0075-0077);
(ii) operating an interaction-analyzer on the monitored real-time digital- interaction to yield interaction-metadata (Paragraphs 0047-0048, 0051-0052, 0068-0069, 0072-0073 variety of metadata);
(iii) operating a prioritization on the yielded interaction-metadata of the monitored real-time digital-interaction to set an emergency-mode thereto (Paragraphs 0047-0048, 0056-0061, 0067-0071, 0080, 0083, 0113 different levels of urgency mode, Paragraphs 0089-0090, 0110 continuously updated during the call), wherein the emergency-mode is one of: 'on' and 'off' ;(Paragraph 0081 urgency/emergency mode represented in variety of ways including [0, 1], or set of possible valuers and/or any other format i.e. ‘on; for higher urgency value of 1 and ‘off’ for lower urgency value of 0) and
(iv) operating an interaction-handler to prioritize the monitored real-time digital- interaction when the emergency-mode has been set to 'on' and move the agent into emergency-handling-mode (Paragraph 0040 displaying visual indication of urgency, Paragraphs 0091-0103 variety of ways to prioritize handling of urgent interaction) (Paragraphs 0020-0122 for complete details).
Klemm teaches variety of system and method arrangements including modules in general (Paragraphs 0013, 0122-0125, 0149), but Klemm does not specifically teach functional modules, and Klemm does not teach (v) when the agent is moved into emergency-handling-mode, configuring the ACD application to set a status of the agent to ‘emergency-unavailable’, wherein when the status of the agent is set to ‘emergency-unavailable’, the ACD application is not routing any interaction to the agent.
However, in the similar field, Vyas teaches a system and method of computerized-method using multiple modules including a Multiple Multi-Channel Effectiveness (MME) module using interaction module calculating MME Score (MMES) 140 for each agent, based on metadata of the one or more concurrent interactions for an agent handling multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions simultaneously (Paragraphs 0044, 0057-0060).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Klemm to include system and method of computerized-method using multiple modules as taught by Vyas in order to enable “an indication of agent handling multiple concurrent multi-channel interactions more efficiently and effectively” (Vyas, Paragraph 0044).
Klemm and Vyas do not teach (v) when the agent is moved into emergency-handling-mode, configuring the ACD application to set a status of the agent to ‘emergency-unavailable’, wherein when the status of the agent is set to ‘emergency-unavailable’, the ACD application is not routing any interaction to the agent. (Note: ‘emergency-unavailable’ status does not make any patentable distinction from “unavailable” status. In both cases, the agent is unavailable to process any activity including interaction or call.).
However, in the similar field, Chandrakant teaches when the agent is moved into call-handling-mode, configuring the ACD application to set a status of the agent to ‘call-unavailable’, wherein when the status of the agent is set to ‘call-unavailable’ the ACD application is not routing any interaction to the agent (Abstract, col. 1 ll. 34-37, col. 2 ll. 66-col. 3 ll. 2, col. 6 ll. 11-21, col. 12 ll. 49-53 not routing call/ interaction to agent in “unavailable’ status, col. 2 ll. 26-31, col. 3 ll. 32-36, col. 5 ll. 54-61, Fig. 9A items 427, 430 many different type of “unavailable” states).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Klemm and Vyas to include when the agent is moved into call-handling-mode, configuring the ACD application to set a status of the agent to ‘call-unavailable’, wherein when the status of the agent is set to ‘call-unavailable’ the ACD application is not routing any interaction to the agent as taught by Chandrakant in order to facilitate distinction of unavailable states consisting of “offline, unavailable, unavailable meeting, unavailable lunch, busy, after call work (ACW), out of office, working, away, do not disturb (DND)” (Chandrakant, col. 3 ll. 33-35). (Note: It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify “unavailable” state further as “emergency-unavailable” state as an implementation choice.).
Regarding claim 4, Klemm teaches wherein said two or more interactions include at least one of: real-time interactions (voice/audio) and asynchronous interactions (text/SMS) (Paragraphs 0044-0047, 0069-077).
Regarding claim 5, Klemm teaches wherein the interaction-handler module is prioritizing the monitored real-time digital-interaction when the emergency-mode has been set to ‘on’ by moving real-time digital-interactions that their emergency-mode is not set to ‘on’ to other agents and defocusing asynchronous interactions (Paragraphs 0099-0104 escalating to human agent, defocusing bot asynchronous interactions).
Regarding claim 6, Klemm teaches wherein the interaction-handler module further comprising: monitoring the prioritized real-time digital-interaction to determine completion thereof and moving the agent out from the emergency-handling-mode (Paragraphs 0090, 0110 dynamically updating urgency score and effecting corresponding response i.e. moving from “on” and ‘off’ state).
Regarding claim 7, Klemm teaches wherein when the agent is moved into emergency-handling-mode the computerized-method further comprising displaying a pop-up message on the UI (Paragraphs 0031, 0038 pop-ups to be presented on display for simultaneous calls to an agent, Paragraph 0040 display visual indication of high level urgency for the call. Note: it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Klemm to specifically display pop-up message as an implementation choice. The applicant is advised to refer to Power (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0057570) paragraph 0032 for such common knowledge..).
Regarding claim 8, Klemm teaches wherein when the agent is moved into emergency-handling-mode the computerized-method further comprising displaying an icon indicating the emergency-handling-mode of the agent on the UI (Paragraphs 0031, 0038 pop-ups to be presented on display for simultaneous calls to an agent, Paragraph 0040 display visual indication of high level urgency for the call. Note: it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Klemm to specifically display an icon as an implementation choice. The applicant is advised to refer to Power (US Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0057570) paragraph 0032 for such common knowledge..).
Regarding claim 9, Klemm teaches displaying an emergency visual indicator with an interaction type of the monitored real-time digital-interaction, on the UI (Fig. 3A, Urgency Summary: Cause: Financial interaction).
Regarding claim 10, Klemm teaches wherein when the agent completes the prioritized monitored real-time digital-interaction, the computerized-method further comprising setting the emergency-mode to ‘off’ and moving the agent out of emergency-handling-mode (Paragraphs 0090, 0110-0111 dynamically updating agent response with change in urgency and obviously removing call related information from display when call ends i.e. moving agent out of emergency handing of just finished call.).
Regarding claim 11, Klemm teaches wherein the computerized-method further comprising determining an emergency category to the monitored real-time digital-interaction when the emergency-mode has been set to ‘on’, based on preconfigured mapping (Paragraphs 0073-0077 categories of “help”, threats).
Regarding claim 12, Klemm teaches wherein when the agent is moved into emergency-handling-mode the computerized-method further comprising displaying the emergency category on the UI in a section related to the monitored real-time digital-interaction (Fig. 3A Cause: Financial).
Regarding claim 14, Klemm teaches wherein when the agent is moved into emergency-handling-mode the computerized-method further comprising displaying the emergency category on the UI in a section related to the monitored real-time digital-interaction (Fig. 3A Cause: Financial).
Regarding claim 16, Klemm teaches wherein the application for handling concurrent interactions receives voice (voice/audio) and digital interactions (text/SMS) (Paragraphs 0044-0047, 0069-077).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemm, Vyas and Chandrakant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mart (US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0020473).
Regarding claim 2, Klemm teaches (i) checking one or more preconfigured parameters in the real-time-digital-interaction wherein each parameter in the one or more preconfigured parameters is related to one category of: a. critical service (Paragraph 0066); b. customer behavior (Paragraphs 0072-0076); and customer information (Paragraphs 0051-0052, 0077); but Klemm, Vyas and Chandrakant do not teach (ii) scoring each parameter in the one or more parameters based on preconfigured mapping values to yield the interaction-metadata.
However, in the similar field, Mart teaches scoring each parameter in the one or more parameters based on preconfigured mapping values to yield the interaction-metadata (Paragraphs 0038-0042).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Klemm, Vyas and Chandrakant to include scoring each parameter in the one or more parameters based on preconfigured mapping values to yield the interaction-metadata as taught by Mart in order to “include associating the interaction with a category based on the relevance parameters” (Mart, Paragraph 0040) and to “include selecting an agent associated with the associated category” (Mart, Paragraph 0042).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 15 is objected as it is rejected under 35 USC 112 as indicated above.
The above objection(s) is (are) based on the claim(s) as presently set forth in its (their) totality. It should not be interpreted as indicating that amended claim(s) broadly reciting certain limitations would be allowable. A more detailed reason(s) for allowance may be set forth in a subsequent Notice of Allowance if and when all claims in the application are put into a condition for allowance.
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 HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights