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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 -3, 5-7, 10, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0132748 (Pavia) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0156704 (Dezonno et al.)
With respect to claim 1, 10 and 16
A method, comprising:
responsive to receiving an incoming call, determining a call status of online agents in a call queue;
determining a group size of a first agent group and a second agent group based on the online agents in the call queue that have an idle call status; (see paragraph 0033 of Dezonno et al.)
batch ringing each agent of the first agent group (see paragraphs 0069, 0142, 00241 and 0244 of Pavia); and
batch ringing each agent of the second agent group when the incoming call is unanswered by an agent of the first agent group.( see paragraphs 0069, 0142, 0241 and 0244 of Pavia).
Pavia teaches the batch ringing aspects as shown above. In addition, Pavia speak to Idle agents (See paragraph 0142) and busy agents (see paragraph 0148). However, Paiva is silent as to the specifics of busy and idle agents. Dezonno et al. disclose such in paragraph 0033. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Dezonno et al. into the system and method of Paiva in order to have an acceptable load balance.
Claims 10 and 16 would be rejected similarly.
With respect to claims 2 and 6, note that Paiva speaks to latency in paragraph 0069. However, it is noted that a latency of 10 seconds, could be found from experimentation.
With respect to claim 4, note paragraph 0143 of Paiva.
With respect to claim 3, note that if an agent group is dynamic, it is not pre-figured. (see rejection of claims 7 below).
With respect to claims 5 and 7, agent groups being static or dynamic is notoriously old in the art and one of ordinary skill could make an agent group static or dynamic whenever and wherever it is deemed necessary.
Claim(s) 8 - 9, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0132748 (Pavia) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0156704 (Deznno et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20180367672 (Ristock et al.).
With respect to claims 8 - 9, Pavia/Dezonno et al. disclose the limitations as shown above except for the call volume aspects. However, Ristock et al. teach such is old in the art. See paragraphs 0064, 0092 -0093 and 0098. It would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Ristock et al. into the system and method Pavia/Dezonno et al as an obvious means for load balancing.
With respect to claims 11 and 17, such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to give an agent a break or to finish up paper work.
With respect to claim 12, note paragraph 0083 of Pavia. Also note the rejection of claim 4 above. If one can route an incoming call to a voicemail box when a wait time threshold has been met. It would have been obvious to route the call to a supervisor when a wait time threshold has been met.
With respect to claims 13 and18, such is an obvious definition of idle time.
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0132748 (Pavia) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0156704 (Dezonno et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20180367672 (Ristock et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20200137231 (Revanur et al.). Pavia/Dezonno et al./Ristock et al. disclose the claimed limitations except for ranking of agents based on idle time. However, Revanur et al. disclose such (see paragraph 0019 of Revanur et al.). I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Revanur et al. into the Pavia/Dezonno et al./Ristock et al. system and method in order to decrease overall idle time.
Claim(s) 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0132748 (Pavia) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0156704 (Dezonno et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20180367672 (Ristock et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 20200137231 (Revanur et al.) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,801,619 (Bae).
Pavia/Dezonno et al./Ristock et al/Revanur et al. disclose the limitations as shown above except the average agent idle time aspects. However, note that Bae teaches such Col. 11, lines 7 -17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Bae in to the Pavia/Dezonno et al./Ristock et al/Revanur et al. system and method as an obvious means to balance the load.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,407 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are very similar with only obvious small word or phrase changes..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Figs. and Abstracts of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571 -272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
12Jun2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights