CTNF 18/914,936 CTNF 72185 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,761,376 (Pande et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,108,237 (Bourne et al.) . With respect to claims 1, 10 and 18, Pande teaches 1. A contact center server, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a plurality of computing devices associated with a plurality of representatives, data indicating whether each of the plurality of representatives is engaged in a live contact with a user; (see col.5, lines 9 – 10 of Pande et al.) causing, on an administrator computing device, presentation of a user interface indicating whether each of the plurality of representatives is engaged in a live contact that is available to be monitored by the administrator computing device; (Col. 5, line 11of Pande et al., In addition, if the agents are involved in a live-contact they are available to be monitored). If this is argued, note at least Col. 9, lines 17 – 25 of Bourne et.). Combining the teaches of Bourne et al. (tracking and availability) with Pande et al. would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to enhance administrator oversight. receiving, from the administrator computing device via the user interface, a selection of a first live contact to be monitored (note col. 5, lines 11 – 23 of Pande et al.; and presenting, via the user interface and in response to the selection, a first live contact monitoring window associated with the first live contact (note col. 5, line 42 – Col. 6, line 12 of Pande et al.). With respect to claims 4 and 12, note Col. 9, lines 5 – 30 of Bourne et al. With respect to claims 5, 13 and 20 col.1, lines 24 – 31, col. 9, lines 1 – 45, Col. 11, lines 1 - 25, Col. 14, lines 44 – 56 of Bourne et al. With respect to claims 8 and 16 note Fig. 1 of Pande et al. With respect to claims 9 and 17, note col. 5, lines 24 – 41, and Col. 6, lines 19 – 45 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3 7, 11, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,761,376 (Pande et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,108,237 (Bourne et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20210157834 (Sivasubramanian et al.) . With respect to claims 2, 3 7, 11, 15 and 19, Pande et al. and Bourne et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the sentiment aspects. However, note that Sivasubramanian et al. teaches such at paragraph 0049 and 0051. It would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Sivasubramanian et al. into the Pande et al./Bourne et al. system and method in order to assist a supervisor or administrator to prioritize which calls to select. With respect to claim 3, note paragraphs 0002, 0032, 0036 - 0037, 0073 and 0156 of Sivasubramanian et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 8,761,376 (Pande et al.) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,108,237 (Bourne et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0048893 (McIllwaine et al.) With respect to claims 6 and 14, Pande et al./Bourne et al. teach the claimed limitations except for the training and subject aspects. However, note that McIllwaine et al. teach such at paragraph 0035. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of McIllwaine et al. into the Pande et al./Bourne et al. system and method in order enable supervisors/managers to more effectively manage agent performance . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11706344 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are basically small and obvious changes of words and or phases changes. For example, in the patent, the administrator requests to monitor the live contact while in the present application the administrator makes a selection . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12120270 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences are basically small and obvious changes of words and or phases changes. For example, in the patent, the administrator requests to monitor the live interaction while in the present application the administrator makes a selection . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571 -272-7488. The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 18Apr2026 /WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/914,936 Page 2 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/914,936 Page 3 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/914,936 Page 4 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/914,936 Page 5 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/914,936 Page 6 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/914,936 Page 7 Art Unit: 2693
Prosecution Insights