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 Objections
1. Claims 1-24 are objected to because of the following informalities Claims 1-24 are not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Supreme Court precedent and recent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that a statutory "process" under 35 U.S.C. 101 must (1) be tied to another statutory category (such as a particular apparatus), or (2) transform underlying subject matter (such as an article or material) to a different state or thing. While the instant claim(s) recite a series of steps or actsto be performed, the claim(s) neither transform underlying subject matter norpositively tie to another statutory category that accomplishes the claimed methodsteps, and therefore do not qualify as a statutory process. Appropriate correction is required. Failure to make appropriate correction(s) would lead to 35 U.S.C 101 rejection(s).
Claim 4 recites PRV in lines 3-4, full spelling of PRV required. Claims 5-8 depend on claim 4 inherit the same defects.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the independent claims recites the steps that selecting pairing strategy set from a group of pairing strategy sets and using one or more pairing strategy in the selected pairing strategy set to establish one or more contact-agent pairs. Claims 11 and 30 recites the steps that obtaining a pairing strategy identifier determining proportion value associated with the pairing strategy identifier and sub-proportion value of a time period associated with the pairing strategy identifier, obtaining performance measurement data and determining updated sub-proportion, and applying pairing strategies during time periods. All of the recited steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the limitations under the organized human activity with paper and pen.
The claim features under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. For example, but for “selecting” [human behavior: choosing, picking], “obtaining” [human behavior: getting, acquiring], “determining” [human behavior: deciding, conclusive], and “applying” [human behavior: registering, trying], in the context of this claim encompasses methods of organized human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "system/method of organized human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
"[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, 'we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?"' MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. "What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm." SAP Inc. v. lnvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hutu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites "significantly more" than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.0S{d). "If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element {or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility." Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that "[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination." Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. "As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo [] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo]." Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, "[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two." West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that "generic computer components such as an 'interface,' 'network,' and 'database' ... do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement"; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end- users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any "additional elements" in the claims that constitute "inventive concept," thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those "additional features" must be more than "well understood, routine, conventional activity." See Alice. To note, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered ... abstract idea [] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that "inventive concept" can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant's originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.") (emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims 'so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.')"). Furthermore, "[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
“A method comprising”
“A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which when executed by processing circuitry cause the processing circuitry to perform”,
“An apparatus comprising:”
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The Berkhiemer memo clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III the memo. As seen in paragraphs ([28, 99, 104, 111]) of the instant Specification and Symantec.. 838 F.3d at 1.321, 110 USPQ2d at. 1362, the elements are viewed to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
In sum, the Examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two." In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. lnvestPic, "[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter." Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, "the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm." Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Next, it is determined whether the claim integrates the judicial expectation into a practical application by identifying whether “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether the integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
In this case, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial application into a practical application. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field ; (ii) a "particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception are a computer program product being tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and comprising instruction when executed by at least one computing device, a device, at least one display, at least one processor, at least one memory storing instructions. Using a computing device and module to identify and determine a value and disposition of an object is merely applying the judicial exception using a generic computing component. Additionally, the claim identifies and determines a value and disposition of an object - the claim does not improve the functioning of the computing device, or other technology or field.
The claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that were not well understood, routine, and conventional. As set forth in the Specification, the disclosed subject matter can be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 25, 10 and 26, 12-24 and 27 include further recited limitations, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the additional elements taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept, In other words, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-3, 9, 25, 26, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chishty et al. (2021/0243305).
As to claim 1, Chishty teaches a method comprising: selecting a pairing strategy (PS) set from a group of PS sets, the group of PS sets (claim 3 – selecting a pairing strategy from a plurality of pairing strategies, wherein the plurality of pairing strategies comprises the first pairing strategy; [0072] - the internal pairing system 390 implements traditional pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO or PBR) or some other pairing strategy that may be proprietary to the task assignment system 300, the internal pairing system 300 may also be in the form of the pairing system 100; [0075] - route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable, for example, when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)) comprising:
i)a first PS set comprising a first PS ([0074] - the external pairing system 395 provides a pairing strategy (e.g., BP) that improves the performance of the task assignment system 300 when compared to the pairing strategy (or strategies) of the internal pairing system 390) and
ii) a second PS set comprising a second PS and a third PS ([0075] - The shared control may be desirable, for example, when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)); and
as a result of selecting a PS set from the group of PS sets, using one or more PSs included in the selected PS set to establish one or more contact-agent pairs ([0075] - The task assignment system 300 operates under a shared control, the switch 380 sends route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP); [0078] - when an agent becomes available, the task at the head of the queue would be selected for assignment to the agent, when an agent becomes available, switch 380 generates an event which is sent to external pairing system 395 and internal pairing system 390 informing them that the agent is available for a task 320. The external pairing system 395 performs a tie-breaking algorithm to determine whether the agent should be assigned to an “ON” task or an “OFF” task from a queue of tasks 320 that are pending. In case the agent is supposed to be assigned to an “ON” task 320, the external system 395 makes the pairing. In case the agent is supposed to be assigned to an “OFF” task, the external system 395 makes the pairing in full control mode or the internal system 390 makes the pairing in shared control mode).
As to claim 2, Chishty teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting a PS set from the group of PS sets comprises: selecting a PS set from the group of PS sets based on a time value indicating a time of day of indicating an amount time that has elapsed since epoch ([0061] - the historical assignment module 150 generates a pairing model or a similar computer processor-generated model based on a set of historical assignments for a period of time (e.g., the past week, the past month, the past year, etc.), which may be used by the task assignment strategy module 140 to make task assignment recommendations or instructions to the task assignment module 110; [0075] - The task assignment system 300 operates under a shared control, the switch 380 sends route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)), or selecting a PS set from the group of PS sets based on a generated pseudo random value (PRV).
As to claim 3, Chishty teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving at one or more switches (Fig. 3; [0071] - a switch 380 routes a plurality of task 320 to a plurality of agents 330, switch 380 includes routing hardware and software, or to one or more PBX or ACD routing components or other queuing or switching components for helping to route the plurality of tasks 320 among the plurality of agents 330) contact information indicating a plurality of contacts available for pairing (Figs. 1, 3; [0056-0057] - The pairing system 100 includes a task assignment module 110 configured to pair (e.g., match, assign) incoming tasks to available agents. In the example of FIG. 1, m tasks 120A-120m are received over a given period, and n agents 130A-130n are available during the given period. Each of the m tasks may be assigned to one of the n agents for servicing or other types of task processing. In the example of FIG. 1, m and n may be arbitrarily large finite integers greater than or equal to one; [0058] - strategy module 140 may be communicatively coupled to and/or configured to operate in the pairing system 100. The task assignment strategy module 140 may implement one or more task assignment strategies (or “pairing strategies”) for assigning individual tasks to individual agents (e.g., pairing contacts with contact center agents)); and
obtaining, by at least one computer processor communicatively coupled to and configured to operate in a contact center system ([0055] - The description herein describes network elements, computers, and/or components of a system and method for pairing strategies in a task assignment system that may include one or more modules. As used herein, the term “module” may be understood to refer to computing software, firmware, hardware, and/or various combinations thereof. Modules, however, are not to be interpreted as software which is not implemented on hardware, firmware, or recorded on a non-transitory processor readable recordable storage medium (i.e., modules are not software per se); [0056] - FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a pairing system 100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. The pairing system 100 includes in a task assignment system (e.g., contact center system) or incorporated in a component or module (e.g., a pairing module) of a task assignment system for helping to assign tasks (e.g., contacts) among various agents, [0071] - FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of a task assignment system 300 with an external pairing system 395 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. In the task assignment system 300, a switch 380 routes a plurality of tasks 320 to a plurality of agents 330. The switch 380 includes routing hardware and software, or to one or more PBX or ACD routing components or other queuing or switching components for helping to route the plurality of tasks 320 among the plurality of agents 330), the contact information indicating the plurality of available contacts, wherein each of the plurality of available contacts is available for pairing to one of a plurality of available agents ([0057] - The pairing system 100 includes a task assignment module 110 configured to pair (e.g., match, assign) incoming tasks to available agents. In the example of FIG. 1, m tasks 120A-120m are received over a given period, and n agents 130A-130n are available during the given period. Each of the m tasks may be assigned to one of the n agents for servicing or other types of task processing), wherein
the step of using one or more PSs included in the selected PS set to establish one or more contact-agent pairs comprises selecting a PS included in the selected PS set and using the selected PS to pair one of the available contacts with one or the available agents ([0075] - The task assignment system 300 operates under a shared control, the switch 380 sends route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP), [0078] - when an agent becomes available, the task at the head of the queue would be selected for assignment to the agent, when an agent becomes available, switch 380 generates an event which is sent to external pairing system 395 and internal pairing system 390 informing them that the agent is available for a task 320. The external pairing system 395 performs a tie-breaking algorithm to determine whether the agent should be assigned to an “ON” task or an “OFF” task from a queue of tasks 320 that are pending. In case the agent is supposed to be assigned to an “ON” task 320, the external system 395 makes the pairing. In case the agent is supposed to be assigned to an “OFF” task, the external system 395 makes the pairing in full control mode or the internal system 390 makes the pairing in shared control mode).
As to claim 9, Chishty teaches a method comprising:
obtaining first contact center information (Fig. 1, [0056-0067] - The pairing system 100 be included in a task assignment system (e.g., contact center system) or incorporated in a component or module (e.g., a pairing module) of a task assignment system for helping to assign tasks (e.g., contacts) among various agents. The pairing system 100 includes a task assignment module 110 that is configured to pair (e.g., match, assign) incoming tasks to available agents. In the example of FIG. 1, m tasks 120A-120m are received over a given period, and n agents 130A-130n are available during the given period) , the first contact center information: i) identifying a first set of available agents that are available to be paired with a contact ([0057] - The pairing system 100 includes a task assignment module 110 configured to pair (e.g., match, assign) incoming tasks to available agents. In the example of FIG. 1, m tasks 120A-120m are received over a given period, and n agents 130A-130n are available during the given period. Each of the m tasks may be assigned to one of the n agents for servicing or other types of task processing) and ii) identifying a first set of contacts that are waiting to be paired with an available agent ([0056-0057] - The pairing system 100 includes a task assignment module 110 configured to pair (e.g., match, assign) incoming tasks to available agents. In the example of FIG. 1, m tasks 120A-120m are received over a given period, and n agents 130A-130n are available during the given period. Each of the m tasks may be assigned to one of the n agents for servicing or other types of task processing. In the example of FIG. 1, m and n may be arbitrarily large finite integers greater than or equal to one);
selecting a pairing strategy (PS) set from a group of two or more PS sets (claim 3 – selecting a pairing strategy from a plurality of pairing strategies, wherein the plurality of pairing strategies comprises the first pairing strategy; [0072] - the internal pairing system 390 implements traditional pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO or PBR) or some other pairing strategy that may be proprietary to the task assignment system 300, the internal pairing system 300 may also be in the form of the pairing system 100; [0075] - route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable, for example, when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)) the group of PS sets comprising: i) a first PS set comprising a first PS ([0074] - the external pairing system 395 provides a pairing strategy (e.g., BP) that improves the performance of the task assignment system 300 when compared to the pairing strategy (or strategies) of the internal pairing system 390) and ii) a second PS set comprising a second PS and a third PS ([0075] - The shared control may be desirable when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)); and
after obtaining the first contact center information and after selecting the pairing strategy set, performing a first pairing process using the first contact center information, wherein the first pairing process implements a PS included in the selected PS set ([0075] - The task assignment system 300 operates under a shared control, the switch 380 sends route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP), [0078] - when an agent becomes available, the task at the head of the queue would be selected for assignment to the agent, when an agent becomes available, switch 380 generates an event which is sent to external pairing system 395 and internal pairing system 390 informing them that the agent is available for a task 320. The external pairing system 395 performs a tie-breaking algorithm to determine whether the agent should be assigned to an “ON” task or an “OFF” task from a queue of tasks 320 that are pending. In case the agent is supposed to be assigned to an “ON” task 320, the external system 395 makes the pairing. In case the agent is supposed to be assigned to an “OFF” task, the external system 395 makes the pairing in full control mode or the internal system 390 makes the pairing in shared control mode).
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Chishty ‘305 teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which when executed by processing circuitry cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 1 ([0041, 0100]; claim 13).
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Furthermore, Chishty ‘305 teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions which when executed by processing circuitry cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 1 ([0041, 0100]; claim 13).
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Chishty ‘305 teaches a memory and processing circuitry coupled to the memory ([0055], [0100] - task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure as described above may involve the processing of input data and the generation of output data to some extent. This input data processing and output data generation may be implemented in hardware or software. For example, specific electronic components may be employed in a behavioral pairing module or similar or related circuitry for implementing the functions associated with task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure).
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Furthermore, Chishty ‘305 teaches a memory and processing circuitry coupled to the memory ([0055], [0100] - task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure as described above may involve the processing of input data and the generation of output data to some extent. This input data processing and output data generation may be implemented in hardware or software. For example, specific electronic components may be employed in a behavioral pairing module or similar or related circuitry for implementing the functions associated with task assignment in accordance with the present disclosure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chishty et al. (2021/0243305) in view of (Chishti US Patent 11,070,647).
As to claim 4, Chishty ‘305 teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the selected PS set is the second PS set ([0075] - The shared control may be desirable, for example, when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)).
Chishty ‘305 does not explicitly discuss selecting a PS included in the second PS set comprises generating a PRV and using the PRV to select a PS included in the second PS set.
Chishty ‘647 teaches selecting a PS included in the second PS set (Fig. 4; col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 5 - a pairing strategy (e.g., BP or FIFO) may be selected for the given contact based on the generated pseudorandom number. For example, if 50% of contacts should be paired using BP, and the other 50% should be paired using FIFO, the PRNG may be configured to generate either a 1 or a 0. If the generated pseudorandom number is a 1, the contact may be designated for BP pairing. If the generated pseudorandom number is 0, the contact may be designated for FIFO pairing) comprises generating a PRV and using the PRV to select a PS included in the second PS set (Fig. 4; col. 11, line 64 through col. 12, line 5 - a pairing strategy (e.g., BP or FIFO) may be selected for the given contact based on the generated pseudorandom number. For example, if 50% of contacts should be paired using BP, and the other 50% should be paired using FIFO, the PRNG may be configured to generate either a 1 or a 0. If the generated pseudorandom number is a 1, the contact may be designated for BP pairing. If the generated pseudorandom number is 0, the contact may be designated for FIFO pairing; col. 5, line 58 through col. 6, line 1 - a contact center may switch (or “cycle”) periodically among at least two different pairing strategies (e.g., between FIFO and PBR; between PBR and BP; among FIFO, PBR, and BP). Additionally, the outcome of each contact-agent interaction may be recorded along with an identification of which pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO, PBR, or BP) had been used to assign that particular contact-agent pair. By tracking which interactions produced which results, the contact center may measure the performance attributable to a first strategy (e.g., FIFO) and the performance attributable to a second strategy (e.g., PBR)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of selecting one of the PS in the second PS set using a pseudorandom value as per Chishty ‘674 into the teachings of Chishty ‘305 since it allows for pairing the contact always using the same pairing strategy each time the contact returns to the contact center since the PRNNG can be configured to be seeded with the same seed each time (Chishty ‘674 col. 12, lines 6-19).
As to claim 5, Chishty ‘305 teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the step of selecting a PS set from the group of PS sets comprises: determining the current time of day; and selecting a PS set include in the group of PS sets based on the determined current time of day ([0061] - the historical assignment module 150 generates a pairing model or a similar computer processor-generated model based on a set of historical assignments for a period of time (e.g., the past week, the past month, the past year, etc.), which may be used by the task assignment strategy module 140 to make task assignment recommendations or instructions to the task assignment module 110; [0075] - The task assignment system 300 operates under a shared control, in which the switch 380 sends route requests alternately between the internal pairing system 390 and the external pairing system 395 to determine which task is to be routed to which agent. The shared control may be desirable, for example, when the internal pairing system 390 employs a traditional or proprietary pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) that may not be provided by the external pairing system 395, while the external pairing system 395 is used to provide a higher-performing pairing strategy (e.g., BP)).
As to claim 6, Chishty ‘647 teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the step of using the one or more PS included in the selected PS set to establish one or more contact-agent comprises: for at least a first specified duration of time, using the one or more PSs included in the selected PS set to establish the one or more contact-agent pairs (Fig. 5; col. 13, lines 24-33 - time may be used to determine which pairing strategy to use for contact n. In this example, arrival time t may be used. If contact n arrived during a time period when the benchmarking system is pairing using strategy A, benchmarking method 500 proceeds to block 560 for subsequent pairing using strategy A. Similarly, if contact n arrived during a time period when the benchmarking system is pairing using strategy B, benchmarking method 500 proceed to block 570 for subsequent pairing using strategy B). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have included the method of selecting a PS for a specified time duration as per the other embodiment of Chishty ‘647 for the method of Chishty ‘305 and Chishty ‘647 since it allows for selecting the pairing strategy based on previously known epoch benchmarking within the time periods, (Chishty ‘647 col. 13, lines 34-40).
As to claim 7, Chishty ‘647 teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the selected PS set is in the second PS set, the first PS set consists of the first PS (col. 13, lines 34-35 - contacts may be paired to available agents using pairing strategies A or B, respectively. In some embodiments, more than two pairing strategies may be used (e.g., prior pairings using A, B, C, etc. or epoch benchmarking within time periods using A, B, C, etc.)). Chishty ‘305 and Chishty ‘647 do not explicitly discuss determining that the first specified duration of time has elapsed; and as a result of determining that the first specified duration of time has elapsed, for at least a second specified duration of time, using the fist PS set to establish a plurality of contact-agent pairs. However, Chishty ‘647 teaches determining that the first specified duration of time has elapsed (Fig. 1A; col. 6, lines 35-49 - FIG. 1A shows a benchmarking period of ten units (e.g., ten minutes). In FIG. 1A, the horizontal axis represents time, and the vertical axis represents whether a first pairing strategy (“1”) or a second pairing strategy (“0”) is used. For the first five minutes (e.g., 9:00-9:05 AM), the first pairing strategy (e.g., BP) may be used. After five minutes, the contact center may switch to the second pairing strategy (e.g., FIFO or PBR) for the remaining five minutes of the ten-minute period (9:05-9:10 AM). At 9:10 AM, the second period may begin, switching back to the first pairing strategy (not shown in FIG. 1A). If the period is 30 minutes (i.e., each unit of time in FIG. 1A is equal to three minutes), the first pairing strategy may be used for the first 15 minutes, and the second pairing strategy may be used for the second 15 minutes); and as a result of determining that the first specified duration of time has elapsed, for at least a second specified duration of time, using the fist PS set to establish a plurality of contact-agent pairs (col. 6, lines 50-62 - With short, intra-hour periods (10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, etc.), the benchmark is less likely to be biased in favor of one pairing strategy or another based on long-term variability (e.g., year-over-year growth, month-to-month sales cycles). However, other factors of performance variability may persist. For example, if the contact center always applies the period shown in FIG. 1A when it opens in the morning, the contact center will always use the first strategy (BP) for the first five minutes. As explained above, the contacts who arrive at a contact center the moment it opens may be of a different type, urgency, value, or distribution of type/urgency/value than the contacts that arrive at other times of the hour or the day). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have included the method of using a certain set of pairing strategy for a given period of time only and switching to another upon the elapsed time as per the other embodiment of Chishty ‘674 for the method of Chishty ‘305 and Chishty ‘674 since it provides for the benchmark to less likely be biased in favor one pairing strategy or another (Chishty ‘674, col. 6, lines 50-54)
7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chishty et al. (2021/0243305) and (Chishti US Patent 11,070,647) in view of O’Brien et al. (2021/0168240).
As to claim 10, Chishty ‘647 teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the first PS is a FIFO PS (col. 12, line 66 though col. 13, line 5 - ), the second PS is a behavioral PS (col. 12, line 66 through col. 13, line 5 - ). Chishty ‘305 and Chishty ‘647 do not explicitly discuss the second PS is a two-dimensional behavioral PS, and the second PS is an n-dimensional behavioral PS, where n > 2.
O’Brien teaches the behavioral PS: a two-dimensional a behavioral PS ([0025-0026] - BP strategies may be applied in an L1 environment (agent surplus, one task; select among multiple available/idle agents), an L2 environment (task surplus, one available/idle agent; select among multiple tasks in queue), and an L3 environment (multiple agents and multiple tasks; select among pairing permutations); The various BP strategies discussed above may be considered two-dimensional (2-D), where one dimension relates to the agents, and the second dimension relates to the tasks (e.g., callers), and the various BP strategies take into account information about agents and tasks to pair them); and the second PS is an n-dimensional behavioral PS, where n > 2 ([0026] - embodiments of the present disclosure relate to decisioning BP strategies that account for higher-dimensional assignments. For a three-dimensional (3-D) example, the BP strategy may assign an agent to both a task and a set of offers the agent can make or a set of actions the agent can take during the task assignment. For another 3-D example, the BP strategy may assign an agent to both a task and a (monetary or non-monetary) reward to be given to an agent for a given task assignment. For a four-dimensional (4-D) example, the BP strategy may assign an agent to a task, an offer set, and a reward).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of providing 2D or higher dimensional BP pairing strategy as per O’Brien into the teachings of Chishty ‘305 and Chishty ‘647 for the purpose of allowing for providing pairing strategy based on multiple elements such as agents, callers, tasks, offers, rewards, etc., (O’Brien, [0026- 0027]).
8. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chishty et al. (2021/0243305) in view of Rizvi (2018/0063330).
As to claim 10, Chishty ‘305 does not explicitly discuss the method of claim 9, further comprising after performing the first pairing process: obtaining second contact center information, the second contact center information: i) identifying a second set of available agents that are available to be paired with a contact and ii) identifying a second set of contacts that are waiting to be paired with an available agent; selecting one of the PS sets included in the group of PS sets; and after obtaining the second contact center information and selecting one of the PS sets included in the group of PS sets, performing a second pairing process using the second contact center information, wherein the second pairing process implements a PS included in the most recently selected PS set.
Rizvi teaches obtaining second contact center information ([0031] - results for a first plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using alternating pairing strategies may be recorded. For example, benchmarking module 140 (FIG. 1) or other pairing modules (not shown) may cycle among two or more pairing strategies, such as a first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) pairing strategy and a behavioral pairing (“BP”) pairing strategy. Various other pairing strategies (e.g., longest-available agent pairing strategy, fewest-contact-interactions-taken-by-agent pairing strategy, etc.), and various benchmarking strategies (e.g., epoch, inline, and hybrid epoch-inline benchmarking strategies) are described in, e.g., U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/131,915, filed Apr. 18, 2016, which is hereby incorporated by reference; [0032-0033] - results for a second plurality of contact-agent interactions paired using the alternating pairing strategies (e.g., FIFO and BP pairing strategies) may be recorded. In some embodiments, blocks 210 and 220 performed simultaneously, as results for individual contact-agent interactions associated with either the first or second plurality of contact-agent interactions become available for recording or other processing. In some embodiments, contact-agent interactions may be grouped into more than two pluralities; contact-agent interactions may be divided based on sites. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center system, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center system) the second contact center information:
i)identifying a second set of available agents that are available to be paired with a contact and ii) identifying a second set of contacts that are waiting to be paired with an available agent ([0033] - contact-agent interactions may be divided based on sites. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center system, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center system; [0045] - Having recorded results for the two (or more) pluralities of contact-agent interactions at blocks 210 and 220, benchmarking method 200 may proceed to block 230);
selecting one of the PS sets included in the group of PS sets; and after obtaining the second contact center information and selecting one of the PS sets included in the group of PS sets, performing a second pairing process using the second contact center information, wherein the second pairing process implements a PS included in the most recently selected PS set ([0033] - contact-agent interactions may be divided based on sites. For example, the first plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by one contact center system, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions may be handled by a second contact center system; [0047] - the benchmarking module is operating on a sales queue in a contact center system with two skills, Skill A and Skill B (e.g., sales to new customers and sales to upgrade existing customers). Contacts may be paired to agents of either Skill A or Skill B, alternating between BP and FIFO pairing strategies. For each contact-agent interaction, a result is recorded. In this example, the result is binary indication of whether a sale was successfully completed with a new customer in Skill A or an existing customer in Skill B. The first plurality of contact-agent interactions are those assigned to agents designated for Skill A, and the second plurality of contact-agent interactions are those assigned to agents designated for Skill B; [0058] - Following the determination of the relative performance corrected for the Yule-Simpson effect at block 240, benchmarking method 200 may end. In some embodiments, benchmarking method 200 may return block 210 and/or block 220 to record and process further results of contact-agent interactions).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of dividing some of the agent-contact pairing to a second contact center based on sites and perform the pairing strategy selection as per Rizvi into the teachings of Chishty ‘305 for the purpose of allowing for distributing the contacts as required based on the location of the contact centers or switch capabilities or skills of the agents, (Rizvi, [0032-0036]).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 11-24 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and objection(s), set forth in this Office action.
Claim 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claims 11 and 30, priors or record fail to teach, or render obvious, alone or in combination a method and an apparatus comprising the claimed components, relationships, and functionalities as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
10. 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-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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