DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 14, 2026, has been entered.
Status of Application
This communication is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received August 14, 2026. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 were amended. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-23 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they provide an inventive concept and integrate the exception into a practical application by improving technology and the functioning of a computer. Specifically, applicant argues that claim 1 recites improvements to a technical field (the output of model-based support agent selections) by not establishing a communication session between a requestor and a support agent in certain situations and delaying the pairing process to potentially make a better match in the future, thus improving the automated requestor/agent paring process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites limitations that reasonably fall within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, including the features argued by applicant above. The recited limitations of the independent claims, as outlined below, involve intaking customer requests, comparing the availability of support agents for the request and a measure of affinity for available support agents, determining if available agents satisfy a threshold measure of affinity, if yes - selecting agents to handle the calls, and if no – delaying selection until additional support agents become available that have measures of affinity that satisfy the threshold measure of affinity. This is business or commercial interactions, as well as managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, because it involves pairing support requests to support agents based on availability and affinity. Thus, the argued improvement is in the recited abstract idea and is not viewed as an improvement to the technology or technical field. Please note per MPEP 2106.04: The Federal Circuit held a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was "new". Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea").
Applicant additionally argues that the claims are integrated into telephony systems, and recite improvements to such systems, including dynamically determining the manner in which connections are made via such systems (for example, instructions are selectively provided to a telephony system to connect calls, placed to the telephone system, with available support agents in certain situations. In other situations, this instruction may be delayed).
With regard to step 2A prong 2 and the claim integrating the recited abstract idea into a practical application, it is noted the additional elements in the independent claims are one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and outputting, to the telephony system, instructions that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent or the additional support agent; and delay outputting, to the telephony system, this instruction. These additional elements, when considering the claim as a whole and these additional elements, alone and in combination, are generic computer-components recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than instructions to apply and implement the abstract idea. Determining the manner in which connections are made are part of the recited abstract idea, as discussed above.
Please see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), discussing whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. This section notes TLI Communications, which provides an example of this where the court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea. Similarly, in the instant claims, models are maintained and queues monitored, support requests are received, the availability of support agents for the request and a measure of affinity for available support agents are compared and it is determined if available agents satisfy a threshold measure of affinity; if yes - selecting agents to handle the calls, and if no – delaying selection until additional support agents become available that have measures of affinity that satisfy the threshold measure of affinity. The additional elements of one or more processors, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and outputting, to the telephony system, instructions that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent or the additional support agent; and delay outputting, to the telephony system, this instruction did not integrate into a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea because they simply apply the abstract idea on a telephony system and using general computer components without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
It is noted the arguments reference certain court decisions, such as McRO and Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Directv, LLC, however in these decisions the specifications explained improvements to technology or computers, and these improvements were reflected in the claim language. In McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). It is further noted an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. Here, intaking customer requests, comparing the availability of support agents for the request and a measure of affinity for available support agents, determining if available agents satisfy a threshold measure of affinity, if yes - selecting agents to handle the calls, and if no – delaying selection until additional support agents become available that have measures of affinity that satisfy the threshold measure of affinity all fall within the recited abstract idea. Thus, the instant claims differ from these court decisions.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims have been considered. In light of the amendments, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-23 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flockhart (US 8,234,141) in view of Bushey et al. (US 6,389,400), with Bushey et al. relied upon for the newly added amendments. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 5, 12, and 19 are sufficient to overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, in this case the exception is an abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.03), without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 15
Step 2A – Prong One:
The limitations of these claims recite the following:
maintain a set of requestor models
maintain a set of support agent models
monitor a state of a first queue that includes a plurality of support requests, wherein monitoring the state of the first queue includes determining a first quantity of support requests in the first queue, wherein each support request, of the plurality of support requests, is associated with a respective call placed to a telephony system;
monitor a state of a second queue that indicates a plurality of available support agents, wherein monitoring the state of the second queue includes determining a second quantity of available support agents in the second queue;
receive a request to pair a particular support request, of the plurality of support requests, with a support agent, wherein the particular support request is received from a particular requestor and is associated with a particular call placed to a telephony system;
compare the first quantity of support requests, in the first queue, to the second quantity of available support agents in the second queue;
identify, based on the comparing, whether the first queue is associated with a surplus with respect to the second queue or whether the second queue is associated with a surplus with respect to the first queue;
when identifying a surplus for the first queue with respect to the second queue:
select, from the set of support agent models, a first support agent model for one or more support agents of the plurality of support agents; and
select, from the set of requestor models, a particular first requestor model for the particular support request;
when identifying a surplus for the second queue with respect to the first queue:
select, from the set of support agent models, a second support agent model for one or more support agents of the plurality of support agents; and
select, from the set of requestor models, a second requestor model for the particular support request;
identify, for each available support agent of the plurality of available support agents indicated by the second queue, a respective measure of affinity between the selected first or second requestor model and a support agent model associated with the
available support agent;
determine whether any respective measure of affinity satisfies a threshold measure of affinity;
when determining that a particular respective measure of affinity, associated with a first available support agent of the plurality of available support agents, satisfies the threshold measure of affinity:
select the first available support agent as a particular support agents;
when determining that none of the respective measures of affinity satisfies the threshold measure of affinity:
delay pairing the particular call to any support agent of the plurality of available support agents;
maintain the particular support request in the first queue while continuing to monitor the state of the second queue;
identify, based on continuing to monitor the state of the second queue, an additional support agent that becomes available after delaying output of the instruction;
determine an additional measure of affinity between the selected first or second requestor model and an additional support agent model associated with the additional support agent; and
based on determining that the additional measure of affinity satisfies the threshold measure of affinity, pair or connect the particular call to the additional support agent.
These limitations recite an abstract idea, specifically a certain method of organizing human activity such as business or commercial interactions, managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions, because the recited claim limitations involve customer service intake of customer requests by comparing available support agents for the requests using models and assigning or selecting agents to handle calls using affinity measures. The claims recite limitations involving certain methods of organizing human activity, as set forth in the see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The independent claims include the following additional elements:
one or more processors
a non-transitory computer-readable medium
output, to the telephony system, instruction that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent or the additional support agent; and delay outputting, to the telephony system, this instruction
When considering each independent claim as a whole, and these additional elements alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these elements are claimed at a high level of generality and amount to no more than the recitation of the words “apply it” (or equivalent) or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The one or more processors, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and outputting, to the telephony system, an instruction causing the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent; and delay outputting, to the telephony system, this instruction are all claimed at a high level of generality and invoked as tools used in their ordinary capacity to perform the recited abstract idea. It is noted the reasons and decision to delay the outputting of the recited abstract idea is part of the recited abstract idea. To the extent that there is a technical aspect to delaying such instruction, the claim recites an idea of a solution without claiming the details of how this solution is accomplished. Thus, this is claimed at a high level of generality and uses of a computer or other machinery (the telephony system) in its ordinary capacity to implement the recited abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements, whether evaluated individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered alone and in combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general-purpose computer and/or its components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a general-purpose computer and/or its components does not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims –
Claims 2, 9 and 16 further recite generate or refine models, which falls within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically following rules to manage business interactions between the customer and the service agent. Additionally, the claims recite the additional element of using artificial intelligence/machine learning techniques. This additional element recites only the idea of a solution and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Further, the general use artificial intelligence/machine learning techniques also merely indicate a technological environment or field of use in which the abstract idea is performed. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, when considered alone and in combination, the additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality and are no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite limitations that further narrow the recited abstract idea discussed above with respect to the independent claims. They are rejected using the same rationale set forth above.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite limitations that further narrow the recited abstract idea discussed above with respect to the independent claims. They are rejected using the same rationale set forth above.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 include limitations that recite the same abstract idea set forth above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. These claims further include a wherein clause about the timing of the outputting of instructions to connect the calls. The timing of when to connect the calls is part of the recited abstract idea, falling within certain methods of organizing human activity, as discussed above. To the extent this claim includes the additional elements of outputting instructions to cause the telephony system to connect calls, this additional element has been addressed above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 7 and 14 recite the intended result that the requestor models and the agent models are generated or refined based on simulated interactions between requestors and support agents. This does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result. Further, these limitations would fall within the recited abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships.
Claims 21-23 recite the additional elements of the telephony system including an interactive voice response ("IVR") system. When considering the claims as a whole, and this additional element alone and in combination with those found in the independent claims, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the IVR system is claimed at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than the recitation of the words “apply it” (or equivalent) or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The IVR system is invoked as a tool used in their ordinary capacity to perform the recited abstract idea. Therefore, as claimed, this does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flockhart (US 8,234,141) in view of Bushey et al. (US 6,389,400).
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Flockhart teaches a device comprising:
one or more processors (See figure 1, column 12, lines 5-11, also disclosing a computer readable medium. See also figure 1) configured to:
maintain a set of requestor representative data sets (See column 6, lines 5-10, column 8, lines 10-32, column 11, lines 20-40, wherein qualifiers and profile items are stored and maintained for contacts/customer requesting support);
maintain a set of support agent representative data sets (See column 3, lines 50-57, column 6, lines 10-20, column 8, lines 10-32, wherein representative attributes associated with agent(s) is/are stored and updated);
monitor a state of a first queue that includes a plurality of support requests, wherein monitoring the state of the first queue includes determining a first quantity of support requests in the first queue, wherein each support request of the plurality of support requests is associated with a respective call placed to a telephony system (See figure 2, column 5, line 55-colun 6, line 4, with customer incoming contacts represented in a work item queue);
monitor a state of a second queue that indicates a plurality of available support agents, wherein monitoring the state of the second queue includes determining a second quantity of available support agents in the second queue (See figure 2, column 5, line 55-colun 6, line 4, with agents represented in a queue based on their skill and availability);
receive a request to pair a particular support request, of the plurality of support requests, with a support agent, wherein the particular support request is received from a particular requestor and is associated with a particular call placed to the telephony system (See column 9, line 53-column 10, line 3 and lines 6-7, where a contact/ work item arrives at the head of the queue and needs to be paired with a support agent. See also figure 4);
compare the first quantity of support requests, in the first queue, to the second quantity of available support agents in the second queue (See figure 2, column 6, lines 5-20, column 7, lines 50-60, where work items are assigned to different work item queues, and from these queues the work items are assigned to agents in agent queues. Goals, volumes and surpluses are considered when looking at the queues);
identify, based on the comparing, whether the first queue is associated with a surplus with respect to the second queue or whether the second queue is associated with a surplus with respect to the first queue (See column 7, lines 50-60, column 8, lines 62-67, column 9, lines 22-27, and column 10, line 60-column 11, line 2, where volumes, surpluses and shortages are considered);
when identifying a surplus for the first queue with respect to the second queue (Paragraphs 13 and 24 of instant specification, fewer agents are available than are needed to handle all support requests in one or more queues):
select, from the set of support agent data sets, a first support agent data set for one or more support agents of the plurality of support agents and select, from the set of requestor data sets, a particular first requestor data set associated with for the particular support request (See column 9, lines 22-27, column 10, line 60-column 11, line 2, when there is a high volume of work the system selects an agent that is faster compared to their peers – as opposed to one that is the most effective. See column 8, lines 62-66, where the selection is dynamic based on the changing conditions at the contact center);
when identifying a surplus for the second queue with respect to the first queue (Paragraphs 13 and 24 of instant specification, more agents are available than are needed to handle all support requests in one or more queues):
select, from the set of support agent data sets, a second support agent data set for one or more support agents of the plurality of support agents; and select, from the set of requestor data sets, a second requestor data set for the particular support request (See column 9, lines 22-27, column 10, line 60-column 11, line 2, where when there is a surplus of available agents, the agent skill having the highest metric for efficiency is selected. See column 8, lines 62-66, where the selection is dynamic based on the changing conditions at the contact center);
select the first available support agent as a particular support agent (See figure 4, column 9, lines 53-67, column 10, lines 24-26 and line 60-column 11, line 6, wherein a work item and an agent are selected to be paired); and
output, to the telephony system, an instruction that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent (See figure 4, column 7, lines 26-31, column 11, lines 5-6, where communication sessions are established); and
While Flockhart discloses data sets representative of requestors and support agents that are used to pair agents and requestors, Flockhart does not explicitly disclose that these representative data sets are models. Further, while Flockhart discloses selecting available support agents as particular agents and connecting a particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent, Flockhart does not expressly disclose the limitations below concerning the identification and use of the measure of affinity and affinity thresholds.
In a call center environment, Bushey et al. discloses maintaining a set of requestor models and maintaining a set of support agent models (See at least figures 4 and 5, column 1, lines 14-17, column 2, lines 28-33, column 4, lines 34-46, column 7, lines 55-67, column 8, lines 15-30), selecting a requestor model or a support agent model from a set of requestor models or a set of agent models (See column 4, lines 34-46, column 8, lines 15-30, column 9, lines 64-column 10, line 13), and selecting an agent using these models (See at least column 4, lines 34-46, column 8, lines 15-30, and column 10, lines 14-35).
Bushey et al. also discloses:
identify, for each available support agent of the plurality of available support agents indicated by the second queue, a respective measure of affinity between the selected first or second requestor model and a support agent model associated with the available support agent (See column 10, lines 14-30, and column 11, lines 5-10, where models are used to determine a match score of how good a match between an agent and customer will likely be. Affinity is determining matches of requestors and agent most likely to achieve a successful outcome. See also column 9, lines 25-30, and column 11, lines 37-40);
determine whether any respective measure of affinity satisfies a threshold measure of affinity (See column 4, lines 10-16, column 10, lines 25-45, column 13, line 57 – column 14, line 7 and lines 21-25, where optimal agents above the threshold are identified);
when determining that a particular respective measure of affinity, associated with a first available support agent of the plurality of available support agents, satisfies the threshold measure of affinity (See column 4, lines 10-16, column 10, lines 25-45, column 13, line 57 – column 14, line 7 and lines 21-25):
select the first available support agent as a particular support agent (See column 4, lines 10-16, column 10, lines 25-45, column 13, line 57 – column 14, line 7 and lines 21-25, where an available agent is above the optimal score threshold level and is selected); and
output, to the telephony system, an instruction that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the selected particular support agent (See column 10, lines 25-45, column 13, line 57 – column 14, line 7, where the call is routed to the selected agent via the system. See also figure 6); and
when determining that none of the respective measures of affinity satisfies the threshold measure of affinity (See figure 16, column 10, lines 35-45, column 13, lines 64-column 14, lines 5):
delay outputting, to the telephony system, the instruction that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to any support agent of the plurality of available support agents (See figure 16, column 10, lines 35-45, column 13, lines 64-column 14, lines 5, where a wait function is initiated and the call is held in a wait queue);
maintain the particular support request in the first queue while continuing to monitor the state of the second queue (See figure 16, column 10, lines 35-45, column 13, lines 64-column 14, lines 5 where a wait function is initiated and the call is held in a wait queue);
identify, based on continuing to monitor the state of the second queue, an additional support agent that becomes available after delaying output of the instruction (See figure 16, column 10, lines 35-45, column 13, lines 64-column 14, lines 5 where the system monitors additional agents becoming available. See also column 14, lines 12-25, where wait time is also monitored);
determine an additional measure of affinity between the selected first or second requestor model and an additional support agent model associated with the additional support agent (See figure 16, column 10, lines 35-45, column 13, lines 64-column 14, lines 5 and lines 12-25, where wait time is also monitored, where the threshold is lowered and time is also considered in determining the measure of affinity. See also column 6, lin60-column 7, line 4); and
based on determining that the additional measure of affinity satisfies the threshold measure of affinity, output, to the telephony system, the instruction that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to an agent device associated with the additional support agent (See column 10, lines 25-45, column 13, line 57 – column 14, line 7, where the call is routed to the selected agent via the system).
Both Flockhart and Bushey et al. are focused on connecting contacts and agents in call center environments. Flockhart specifically discloses generators that maintain and update data representing requestors (contacts) and agents, which are used to select and connect agents with contacts. Bushey et al. specifically aggregates data about agents and customers into models that are scored and used to make optimal matches, including having the customer wait for an optimal or acceptable agent based on scores and thresholds prior to connecting and routing the customer. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include the customer and agent models of Bushey et al. as well as Bushey et al.’s matching of agents and customer based on scores and thresholds indicative of those matches most likely to achieve a successful outcome in the system of Flockhart in order to better tailor interactions and to advantageously manage customer satisfaction, thereby improving overall performance. See Bushey et al., column 2, lines 37-40, and column 14, lines 5-25, and Flockhart, column 8, lines 10-35.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Flockhart discloses the one or more processors are further configured to maintain measures of satisfaction between respective requestor and support agent data sets, wherein selecting the particular support agent is further based on a particular measure of satisfaction (See column 7, line 59-colun 8, line 5 and lines 33-55).
While Flockhart discloses data sets representative of requestors and support agents that are used to pair agents and requestors, Flockhart does not explicitly disclose that these representative data sets are models. Further, while Flockhart discusses customer satisfaction data (Flockhart, column 3, lines 50-57, column 8, lines 1-3 and 33-45), it does not expressly disclose affinity.
In a call center environment, Bushey et al. discloses requestor models and support agent models (See at least figures 4 and 5, column 1, lines 14-17, column 2, lines 28-33, column 4, lines 34-46, column 7, lines 55-67, column 8, lines 15-30), selecting a requestor model or a support agent model from a set of requestor models or a set of agent models (See column 4, lines 34-46, column 8, lines 15-30, column 9, lines 64-column 10, line 13), and selecting an agent using these models (See at least column 4, lines 34-46, column 8, lines 15-30, and column 10, lines 14-35).
Bushey et al. further discloses affinity data matching and maintaining measures of affinity between respective requestor models and support agent models, wherein selecting the particular support agent is further based on a particular measure of affinity between the first or second support agent model and the first or second requestor model (See column 10, lines 14-30, and column 11, lines 5-10, where models are used to determine a match score of how good a match between an agent and customer will likely be. Affinity is determining matches of requestors and agent most likely to achieve a successful outcome. See also column 9, lines 25-30, and column 11, lines 37-40).
Both Flockhart and Bushey et al. connect contacts and agents in call center environments. Flockhart specifically discloses generators that maintain and update data representing requestors (contacts) and agents, which are used to select and connect agents with contacts. Bushey et al. specifically aggregates data about agents and customers into models that are scored and used to make optimal matches, including having the customer wait for an optimal or acceptable agent based on scores and thresholds prior to connecting and routing the customer. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include the customer and agent models of Bushey et al. as well as Bushey et al.’s matching of agents and customer based on scores and thresholds indicative of those matches most likely to achieve a successful outcome in the system of Flockhart in order to better tailor interactions and to advantageously manage customer satisfaction, thereby improving overall performance. See Bushey et al., column 2, lines 37-40, and column 14, lines 5-25, and Flockhart, column 8, lines 10-35.
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19, Flockhart teaches wherein the set of requestor data includes a requestor data that has been generated or refined based on interactions between a plurality of requestors and one or more support agents of the plurality of support agents (See column 7, lines 30-33, column 8, lines 10-35, column 11, lines 19-40, where data is stored and updated including previous history with the enterprise).
While Flockhart discloses data sets representative of requestors and support agents that are used to pair agents and requestors, Flockhart does not explicitly disclose that these representative data sets are models.
In a call center environment, Bushey et al. discloses requestor models and support agent models (See at least figures 4 and 5, column 1, lines 14-17, column 2, lines 28-33, column 4, lines 34-46, column 7, lines 55-67, column 8, lines 15-30).
Both Flockhart and Bushey et al. are focused on connecting contacts and agents in call center environments. Flockhart specifically discloses generators that maintain and update data representing requestors (contacts) and agents, which are used to select and connect agents with contacts. Bushey et al. specifically aggregates data about agents and customers into models that are scored and used to make optimal matches. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include the customer and agent models of Bushey et al. to represent the data in the system of Flockhart in order to better tailor interactions and to advantageously manage customer satisfaction, thereby improving overall performance. See Bushey et al., column 2, lines 37-40, and column 14, lines 5-25, and Flockhart, column 8, lines 10-35.
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20, Flockhart teaches wherein the particular support request is a first support request, wherein the first queue includes a particular sequence of support requests, wherein the first support request is later in the particular sequence than a second support request wherein connecting the particular call associated with the first support request to the agent device is prior to connecting a call associated with the second support request to an agent device (See column 5, line 55-column 6, line 6, and column 11, line 10-45, where queues are sequences of work and where different qualifiers can pull work from the queue, such as being a ‘gold customer’ or in a multi-skilled agent scenario. See also column 10, lines 53-63).
While Flockhart teaches connecting and routing calls, Flockhart does not expressly disclose instructions that cause the telephony system to connect the particular call to the agent device and to connect a call associated with the second support request to an agent device. Bushey et al. disclose instructions that causes the telephony system to connect the particular call to the agent device and to connect a call associated with the second support request to an agent device (See column 10, lines 25-45, column 13, line 57 – column 14, line 7, where the call is routed to the selected agent via the system. See also figure 6).
Both Flockhart and Bushey et al. connect contacts and agents in call center environments. Flockhart discusses queues that are sequences of work and where different qualifiers can pull work from the queue, such as being a ‘gold customer’ or in a multi-skilled agent scenario and assign and route it to an agent. Bushey et al. specifically discloses instructions that cause the telephony system to connect calls to devices of agents. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include the instructions to connect the calls of requesters and agents of Bushey et al. in the system of Flockhart to most effectively route customer calls to agents, thereby improving overall performance. See Bushey et al. column 8, lines 1-15.
Regarding claims 21-23, Flockhart teaches wherein the telephony system includes an interactive voice response ("IVR") system (See column 3, lines 38-40, column 4, lines 60-65, column 7, lines 17-26).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flockhart (US 8,234,141) in view of Bushey et al. (US 6,389,400) and in further view of Konig et al. (US 2017/0316438)
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16, Flockhart teaches a profile generator and maintaining and updating data representing requestors and agents (See at least column 8, lines 10-35). Flockhart does not specifically disclose generating or refining the set of requestor models and the set of support agent models using artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") techniques.
Bushey et al. discloses generating or refining the set of requestor models and the set of support agent models (See at least figures 4 and 5, column 1, lines 14-17, column 2, lines 28-33, column 4, lines 34-46, column 7, lines 55-67, column 8, lines 15-30), but does not expressly discloses doing so using artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") techniques.
Konig et al. teaches generating or refining the set of requestor models and the set of support agent models using artificial intelligence/machine learning ("AI/ML") techniques (See at least paragraphs 0011, 0058, 0067, 076, 0082, 0087, wherein using the customer (requestor) models and the agent models involves machine learning and training or predicting a feature of the model).
All of Flockhart, Bushey et al., and Konig et al. concern connecting contacts and agents in call center environments. Flockhart specifically discloses generators that maintain and update data representing requestors (contacts) and agents, which are used to select and connect agents with contacts. Bushey et al. specifically aggregates data about agents and customers into models that are scored and used to make optimal matches. Konig et al. also aggregates this data into agent and customer models that are used to make predictions about the customer and agent and further uses AI/ML techniques to generate and refine the models. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include the machine learning of Konig et al. on customer and agent models Bushey et al. and on the customer and agent data of the combination of Flockhart and Bushey et al. in order to better tailor interactions and allocate resources based on the predictions, thereby improving overall performance, including improving the customer experience. See Konig et al., paragraph 0056, and Flockhart, column 8, lines 10-35.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flockhart (US 8,234,141) in view of Bushey et al. (US 6,389,400) and in further view of Khatri et al. (US 2025/0365367).
Per claims 7 and 14, Flockhart does not disclose requestor models and agent models are generated or refined based on simulated interaction between requestors and support agents.
In a call center environment, Bushey et al. discloses requestor models and support agent models (See at least figures 4 and 5, column 1, lines 14-17, column 2, lines 28-33, column 4, lines 34-46, column 7, lines 55-67, column 8, lines 15-30). However, Bushey et al. does not specifically disclose simulated interactions between requestors and support agents.
Khatri et al. teaches simulated interactions between requestors and support agents (See at least paragraphs 0005, 0057, 0065, 0082, 0092, which disclose simulated contact-agent pairings to improve overall performance of the call center).
All of Flockhart, Bushey et al., and Khatri disclose call center routing systems that utilize models and representative data about callers and agents to best pair callers and agents. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to include the simulation of Khatri et al. in the information and models used to represent agents and callers in Flockhart and Bushey et al. when matching contacts and agents in order to maximize contact center performance by amplifying the data considered when creating contact-agent pairings. See Khatri et al., paragraphs 0002, 0006, 0008.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klemm et al. (US 2017/0149972) in a contact center, determining a caller’s affinity and waiting to establish a connection using this value.
McGann et al. (US 2017/0111507) discloses matching agents and callers in a call center using affinity and optimal interaction matching while balancing wait time.
Xje et al. (WO 2009097210) discusses optimal call matching in a contact center and a customer waiting to be connected to an agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights