DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of a Continuation (CON) of Application 18/658217 which is now United States Patent 12,483,654 which is a Continuation (CON) of Application 18/075785 which is now United States Patent 11,991,312 which is a Continuation (CON) of Application 16/413991 which is now United States Patent 11,546,741 which is a Continuation (CON) of Application 14/966987 which is now United States Patent 10,320,983 which is a Continuation (CON) of Application 13/921941 which is now United States Patent 9,247,062. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 1-8, 11-17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,483,654; hereinafter referred to as Patent (‘654). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application is made up of elements taken from Claims 1 and 2 of Patent (‘654). The step of receiving a request to place a hold on a communication session recited in Claim 1 of the instant application is recited as receiving, via an Application Programming Interface (API) call, a request to place a hold on a communication session associated with a device in Patent (‘654).
The step of adding the communication session to a queue using a communication session proxy, the communication session proxy being programmatically configured to queue the communication session without an active connection recited in Claim 1 of the instant application is recited as adding the communication session to the communication queue and wherein a communication session proxy is used to add the communication session to the communication queue, the communication session proxy being configured to queue the communication session without an active connection recited in Claims 1 and 2 of Patent (‘654).
The step of maintaining a position of the communication session proxy in the queue while the communication session transitions between inactive and active states recited in Claim 1 of the instant application is recited as in response to adding the communication session to the communication queue, retrieving a wait-state application for the communication session based on the wait-state application parameter while the communication session remains in the communication queue recited in Claim 1 of Patent (‘654).
Claims 2 and 12 of the instant application are made up of elements taken from Claims 2 and 10 of Patent (‘654). The step of wherein the communication session proxy represents the communication session in an inactive state is recited as the communication session proxy being configured to queue the communication session without an active connection in Claim 2 of Patent (‘654). The step of wherein the communication session proxy comprises a parameter that specifies a communication endpoint to be connected upon dequeuing is recited as a communication endpoint to be connected upon reactivating the communication session associated with the device in Claim 10 of Patent (‘654).
Claims 3 and 13 of the instant application is made up of elements taken from Claims 1 and 3 of Patent (‘654). The step of determining that the request specifies a wait-state application is recited as a request to place a hold on a communication session associated with a device, the request including a wait-state application parameter that defines a queuing behavior of the communication session in one or more states of waiting in a communication queue in Claim 1 of Patent (‘654).
The step of invoking the wait-state application while the communication session is placed on the hold is recited as in response to receiving the request to place a hold on the communication session associated with the device as recited in Claim 3 of Patent (‘654).
Claims 4 and 14 of the instant application recites wherein the queue is managed to enforce a first-in-first-out queue behavior or a first-in-last-out behavior which is recited in Claim 4 of Patent (‘654) as processing the communication queue in a first-in-first-out order.
Claims 5 and 15 of the instant application recites providing an Application Programming Interface (API) for managing the queue via a queue resource which is recited in Claim 1 of Patent (‘654) as receiving, via an Application Programming Interface (API) call, a request to place a hold on a communication session associated with a device, the request including a wait-state application parameter that defines a queuing behavior of the communication session in one or more states of waiting in a communication queue; adding the communication session to the communication queue; and in response to adding the communication session to the communication queue, retrieving a wait-state application for the communication session based on the wait-state application parameter while the communication session remains in the communication queue.
Claims 6 and 16 of the instant application recites wherein the queue resource comprises one or more of a queue identifier, a current queue size metric, a maximum queue size, and an average wait time which is recited as wherein the request comprises a plurality of queuing parameters that correspond to one or more of the wait-state application, a queue identifier, a resource identifier, an action state application, a time-out duration, and a queue error application.
Claims 7 and 17 of the instant application recites receiving, via the API, a request to remove the communication session from the queue; and removing, via the API, the communication session from the queue to reconnect a caller associated with the communication session, the removing of the communication session including connecting a communication endpoint associated with the communication session which is recited as in response to adding the communication session to the communication queue, deactivating the communication session, the deactivated communication session comprising a communication endpoint to be connected upon reactivating the communication session associated with the device in Claim 10 of Patent (‘654)
Claims 8 and 18 of the instant application recites wherein the request comprises a queue identifier, the queue identifier being associated with an application-based namespace or a global namespace which is recited as wherein the request comprises a plurality of queuing parameters that correspond to one or more of the wait-state application, a queue identifier, a resource identifier, an action state application, a time-out duration, and a queue error application in Patent (‘654).
Claim 11 of the instant application and Claim 11 of Patent (‘654) are directed to a system and method for the queuing of a communication which mirror one another to execute the method as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of Patent (‘654) which have the same double patenting issues as described above in Claim 1.
Claim 20 of the instant application and Claim 20 of Patent (‘654) are directed to a method for the queuing of a communication that includes a non-transitory computer processor readable medium which mirror one another to execute the method as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application and Claim 1 of Patent (‘654) which have the same double patenting issues as described above in Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 3, 11, 13 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (2002/0067823 A1) in view of Anisimov et al (2006/0209797 A1).
As per Claim 1, Walker teaches a method comprising: receiving a request to place a hold on a communication session (Figure 1 – References 105, 110 and 150; Page 2, Paragraph [0030]; Page 3, Paragraph [0039]; Page 5, Paragraph [0057]); adding the communication session to a queue using a communication session proxy, the communication session proxy being programmatically configured to queue the communication session without an active connection (Figure 10C – Reference 1060; Page 10, Paragraph [0101]).
Walker does not teach maintaining a position of the communication session proxy in the queue while the communication session transitions between inactive and active states. However, Anisimov teaches maintaining a position of the communication session proxy in the queue while the communication session transitions between inactive and active states (Page 11, Paragraph [0123]).
(Note: In paragraphs [0122] and [0123], Anisimov describes the termination of call legs at an endpoint having a physical or virtual port. Anisimov also describes an embodiment where a call leg is terminated at a call treatment source [e.g. music-on-hold] and indicates that each endpoint has a unique endpoint address represented as a character string which is described as being among other things a uniform resource locator [URL]. Anisimov indicates that the parts of a call leg outside of a switch or gateway are exterior to the communication platform)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method taught by Walker with the method taught by Anisimov to integrate an Internet Customer Service Center with a call center so a caller/customer arriving at an Internet site can transfer to a live or automated agent thereby ensuring more efficient service, proper call routing, access verification, and streamlined billing.
As per Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Walker and Anisimov teaches determining that the request specifies a wait-state application; and invoking the wait-state application while the communication session is placed on the hold as described in Claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method taught by Walker with the method taught by Anisimov to integrate an Internet Customer Service Center with a call center so a caller/customer arriving at an Internet site can transfer to a live or automated agent thereby ensuring more efficient service, proper call routing, access verification, and streamlined billing.
As per Claims 11 and 20, the combination of Walker and Anisimov teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Walker also teaches one or more hardware processors; and one or more computer-readable mediums storing instructions (Figure 2 – Reference 230; Page 5, Paragraphs [0052] and [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Walker with the method, system and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Anisimov to integrate an Internet Customer Service Center with a call center so a caller/customer arriving at an Internet site can transfer to a live or automated agent thereby ensuring more efficient service, proper call routing, access verification, and streamlined billing.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (2002/0067823 A1) in view of Anisimov et al (2006/0209797 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Sundaram et al (2003/0051037 A1).
As per Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Walker and Anisimov teaches the method and system of Claims 1 and 11. The combination of Walker and Anisimov also teaches wherein the communication session proxy represents the communication session in an inactive state; but does not teach wherein the communication session proxy comprises a parameter that specifies a communication endpoint to be connected upon dequeuing. However, Sundaram teaches wherein the communication session proxy comprises a parameter that specifies a communication endpoint to be connected upon dequeuing (Figure 13 – Reference 172; Page 9, Paragraphs [0082] – [0085]).
(Note: In paragraph [0082], Sundaram describes a call flow associated with a call queuing operation where an enterprise router provides transfer instructions for a call. In paragraph [0083], Sundaram describes a voice extensible language [VXML] object tag – Call Router Adapter that queues the call [i.e. queued call = inactive communication])
(Note: In paragraph [0084], Sundaram describes obtaining the transfer destination number [i.e. parameter that specifies a communication endpoint to be connected upon dequeuing] and incorporating it into a session initiation protocol [SIP] INVITE message. In paragraph [0085], Sundaram describes a media server playing music [i.e. wait-state treatment] and once the call transfer operation has been executed suspending the wait-state treatment while the call is connected to a destination endpoint)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system taught by Walker and Anisimov with the method and system taught by Sundaram to enable the dynamic determination of communication routing within call centers based on current call center conditions allowing optimal agent routing when call volume is low and best available agent routing when call volume is higher.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (2002/0067823 A1) in view of Anisimov et al (2006/0209797 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Zettner (8,233,611 B1).
As per Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Walker and Anisimov teaches the method and system of Claims 1 and 11; but does not teach wherein the queue is managed to enforce a first-in-first-out queue behavior or a first-in-last-out behavior. However, Zettner teaches wherein the queue is managed to enforce a first-in-first-out queue behavior or a first-in-last-out behavior (Note: In Column 5, Lines 32-51; Zettner describes communication session being processed in first-in first-out [FIFO] order)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method and system taught by Walker and Anisimov with the method and system as taught by Zettner to provide a subscriber seeking assistance from a call center representative a customized queuing experience that increases the probability that said subscriber continues to remain in the queue until said subscriber’s issue is resolved.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16 and 18 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (2002/0067823 A1) in view of Anisimov et al (2006/0209797 A1) as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Anderson et al (2011/0125894 A1).
As per Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Walker and Anisimov teaches the method and system of Claims 1 and 11; but does not teach providing an Application Programming Interface (API) for managing the queue via a queue resource. However, Anderson teaches providing an Application Programming Interface (API) for managing the queue via a queue resource (Figure 1A – References 114a, 114b and 160; Page 5, Paragraph [0038]; Page 14, Paragraphs [0093] and [0094]; Page 16, Paragraph [0106]).
(Note: In paragraph [0038], Anderson describes physical/virtual resources as physical or virtual servers [i.e. first application server system]. In paragraphs [0093] and [0094], A REST API using the Hypertext Transfer Protocol [HTTP] is used to provide services that reside within the infrastructure [i.e. internal systems], a cloud computing environment, third party data canter or elsewhere [i.e. external systems]. In paragraph [0106], Anderson describes a provisioning plan that places requests in a queue when a service request may not be performed immediately)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method and system taught by Walker and Anisimov with the method and system taught by Anderson to provide customers an opportunity to consume information provided by and/or make purchases from an enterprise the customer is engaged with while waiting to be connected to a representative in an effort to generate additional revenue for an enterprise.
As per Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Walker, Anisimov and Anderson teaches wherein the queue resource comprises one or more of a queue identifier, a current queue size metric, a maximum queue size, and an average wait time (Anderson – Queue Identifier: Page 16, Paragraph [0106]; Walker – Resource Identifier: Figure 8 – Reference 812; Page 7, Paragraphs [0075] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method and system taught by Walker and Anisimov with the method and system taught by Anderson to provide customers an opportunity to consume information provided by and/or make purchases from an enterprise the customer is engaged with while waiting to be connected to a representative in an effort to generate additional revenue for an enterprise.
As per Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Walker, Anisimov and Anderson teaches wherein the request comprises a queue identifier, the queue identifier being associated with an application-based namespace or a global namespace (Anderson – Queue Identifier: Page 16, Paragraph [0106]; Walker – Resource Identifier: Figure 8 – Reference 812; Page 7, Paragraphs [0075] and [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify the method and system taught by Walker and Anisimov with the method and system taught by Anderson to provide customers an opportunity to consume information provided by and/or make purchases from an enterprise the customer is engaged with while waiting to be connected to a representative in an effort to generate additional revenue for an enterprise.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walker et al (2002/0067823 A1) in view of Anisimov et al (2006/0209797 A1), and further in view of Anderson et al (2011/0125894 A1) as applied to Claims 5 and 15 above, and further in view of Sundaram et al (2003/0051037 A1).
As per Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Walker, Anisimov and Anderson teaches the method and system of Claims 5 and 15; but does not teach receiving, via the API, a request to remove the communication session from the queue; and removing, via the API, the communication session from the queue to reconnect a caller associated with the communication session, the removing of the communication session including connecting a communication endpoint associated with the communication session.
However, Sundaram teaches receiving, via the API, a request to remove the communication session from the queue; and removing, via the API, the communication session from the queue to reconnect a caller associated with the communication session, the removing of the communication session including connecting a communication endpoint associated with the communication session (Figure 13 – Reference 172; Page 9, Paragraphs [0082] – [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system taught by Walker, Anisimov and Anderson with the method and system taught by Sundaram to enable the dynamic determination of communication routing within call centers based on current call center conditions allowing optimal agent routing when call volume is low and best available agent routing when call volume is higher.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dadiomov et al (2006/0218560 A1), JAISWAL et al (2010/0054431 A1), Pavlic et al (2009/0074166 A1), Andreasson (2009/0046838 A1), Pogossiants et al (2001/0028649 A1), Flockhart et al (6,820,260 B1), Williams (2008/0317058 A1), Lee et al (2007/0071223 A1), CHEN et al (2012/0114112 A1), and Spence et al (2013/0036427 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods of implementing a queue in a call center environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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 at 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights