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 .
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 30, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) :
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) . The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are the “modules” of Claims 1-20.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) , applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding the “system administrator module”, the Specification discloses no algorithm for how the module “identifies one or more entities of the customer management system to generate one or more configurations specific to each of the one or more entities”, “changes which modules are stored singularly or redundantly”, “creates and stores entity data and configuration data”, or “generates a particularized user interface specific to an entity based on one or more of an industry of an entity, one or more types of customers served by the entity, and one or more types of products sold by the entity.”
Regarding the “update module”, the Specification discloses no algorithm for how the module “updates one or more modules and data of the customer management system” or “downloads or pushes one or more updated modules or data of the customer management system.”
Regarding the “score assessment module”, the Specification discloses no algorithm for how the module “provides a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise, and user of the customer management system.”
Regarding the “analytics module”, the Specification discloses no algorithm for how the module “compiles one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data, and end user data”, “rating performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity”, “indicating one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity”, “calculates an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers”, or “provides an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers.”
Examiner recommends removal of the term “module” from the claim language so the claims no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grewal (PG Pub. No. 2008/0270459 A1), and further in view of Conway (PG Pub. No. 2006/0262920 A1) and Erhart (PG Pub. No. 2011/0276513 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Grewal discloses a computer-implemented method for customer management, comprising:
providing, by a system administration module of a server of a customer management system, one or more services to configure one or more end user systems, wherein the server comprises a processor and memory (see Grewal, paragraph [0019], where through the use of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1, multiple organizations, referred to herein as ‘tenants’ may concurrently utilize the computing resources provided by the system 100; the illustrative computing system 100 shown in Fig. 1 includes a CRM server computer 102; the CRM server computer 102 executes a CRM application 106 and maintains one or more associated databases, described more fully herein; the CRM application 106 provides functionality for managing relationships with business customers, including the capture, storage, and analysis of customer information);
identifying, by the system administration module, one or more entities of the customer management system to generate one or more configurations specific to each of the one or more entities (see Grewal, paragraph [0007], where a private, unshared database is associated with a particular tenant and is inaccessible to the other tenants; the private, unshared databases are utilized to store application data for an associated tenant, along with any customizations to the application implemented by the tenant); and
updating, by an update module of the server, one or more modules and data of the customer management system (see Grewal, paragraph [0022], where the CRM application 106 operates in conjunction with a database server application 112 which also executes on the CRM server computer 102; the database server application 112 provides functionality for creating, maintaining, accessing, and updating one or more databases).
Grewal does not disclose:
providing, by a score assessment module of the server, a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise and user of the customer management system;
compiling, by an analytics module of the server, one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data and end user data;
providing, by the analytics module of the server, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system;
rating, by the analytics module of the server, performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity; and
indicating, by the analytics module of the server, one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity.
Conway discloses:
providing, by a score assessment module of the server, a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise and user of the customer management system (see Conway, paragraph [0032], where the graphical user interface includes a call statistics visual field selectable by a user for displaying statistics pertaining to the caller interaction events; the statistics in the call statistics visual field can include, for example: call duration, caller talk time, agent talk time, a caller satisfaction score, an indication of the number of silences greater than a predetermined time period, and an agent satisfaction score);
compiling, by an analytics module of the server, one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data and end user data (see Conway, paragraph [0138], where a CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 566 Is shown in Fig. 20; the client satisfaction report 466 is a summary level report that identifies analysis results by a client for a specified time interval);
rating, by the analytics module of the server, performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity (see Conway, paragraph [0033], where the graphical user interface can also include a number of other visual fields; for example, the graphical user interface can include a caller satisfaction report field for displaying one or more caller satisfaction reports, or a user note field for enabling a user of the system to place a note with the first caller interaction event; see also paragraph [0138], where a CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 566 Is shown in Fig. 20; the client satisfaction report 466 is a summary level report that identifies analysis results by a client for a specified time interval); and
indicating, by the analytics module of the server, one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity (see Conway, paragraph [0139], where CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 466 includes a number of calls column 470 (total number of calls analyzed for the associated client during the specified reporting interval), an average duration column 472 (total analyzed talk time for all calls analyzed for the associated client divided by the total number of calls analyzed for the client), a greater than (“>”) 150% duration column 474 (percentage of calls for a client that exceed 150% of the average duration for all calls per call type), a greater than 90 second hold column 476 (percentage of calls for a client where the call center agent places the client on hold for greater than 90 seconds), a great than 30 second silence column 478 (percentage of calls for a client where there is a period of continuous silence within a call greater than 30 seconds), a customer dissatisfaction column 480 (percentage of calls for a client where the caller exhibits dissatisfaction or distress – these calls are in the dissatisfied caller and upset caller/issue unresolved folders).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Grewal in view of Conway does not disclose providing, by the analytics module of the server, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system. Erhart discloses providing, by the analytics module of the server, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system (see Erhart, paragraph [0043], where the contact center 102 can modify a non-direct contact, from a social media network 116, 118, and/or 120, into a directed contact by sending a response message directly to a customer’s communication device 114).
Grewal, Conway, and Erhart are all directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal and Conway with Erhart as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 3, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising creating and storing, by the system administration module, entity data and configuration data (see Grewal, paragraph [0019], where through the use of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1, multiple organizations, referred to herein as ‘tenants’ may concurrently utilize the computing resources provided by the system 100; the illustrative computing system 100 shown in Fig. 1 includes a CRM server computer 102; the CRM server computer 102 executes a CRM application 106 and maintains one or more associated databases, described more fully herein; the CRM application 106 provides functionality for managing relationships with business customers, including the capture, storage, and analysis of customer information).
Regarding Claim 4, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising downloading or pushing, by the update module, one or more updated modules or data of the customer management system (see Grewal, paragraph [0022], where the CRM application 106 operates in conjunction with a database server application 112 which also executes on the CRM server computer 102; the database server application 112 provides functionality for creating, maintaining, accessing, and updating one or more databases).
Regarding Claim 5, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Grewal does not disclose calculating, by the analytics module, an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers. Conway discloses calculating, by the analytics module, an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers (see Conway, paragraph [0146], where the CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 includes a location column 504 (this identifies the call center location that received the call) … a greater than 90 second hold column 512 (percentage of calls for a CSR agent where the CSR places the caller on hold for greater than 90 seconds); see also Fig. 26, where CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 tracks composite statistics for all CSR agents at location).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Grewal does not disclose providing, by the analytics module of the server, an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers. Conway discloses providing, by the analytics module of the server, an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers (see Conway, paragraph [0146], where the CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 includes a location column 504 (this identifies the call center location that received the call) … a greater than 90 second hold column 512 (percentage of calls for a CSR agent where the CSR places the caller on hold for greater than 90 seconds); see also Fig. 26, where CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 tracks composite statistics for all CSR agents at location).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 8, Grewal discloses a system for customer management, comprising:
a system architecture comprising a system administrator module, an update module, a score assessment module, an analytics module, a database and a server (see Grewal, Fig. 2 for system 200 comprising site-wide servers 204 and database 122);
the server, comprising a processor and memory (see Grewal, paragraph [0017], where those skilled in the art will appreciate that the subject matter described herein may be practiced with other computer system configurations, including hand-held devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like), is configured to:
provide, by the system administration module, one or more services to configure one or more end user systems, wherein the server comprises a processor and memory (see Grewal, paragraph [0019], where through the use of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1, multiple organizations, referred to herein as ‘tenants’ may concurrently utilize the computing resources provided by the system 100; the illustrative computing system 100 shown in Fig. 1 includes a CRM server computer 102; the CRM server computer 102 executes a CRM application 106 and maintains one or more associated databases, described more fully herein; the CRM application 106 provides functionality for managing relationships with business customers, including the capture, storage, and analysis of customer information);
identify, by the system administration module, one or more entities of the customer management system to generate one or more configurations specific to each of the one or more entities (see Grewal, paragraph [0007], where a private, unshared database is associated with a particular tenant and is inaccessible to the other tenants; the private, unshared databases are utilized to store application data for an associated tenant, along with any customizations to the application implemented by the tenant); and
update, by an update module, one or more modules and data of the customer management system (see Grewal, paragraph [0022], where the CRM application 106 operates in conjunction with a database server application 112 which also executes on the CRM server computer 102; the database server application 112 provides functionality for creating, maintaining, accessing, and updating one or more databases).
Grewal does not disclose:
provide, by a score assessment module, a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise and user of the customer management system;
compile, by an analytics module, one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data and end user data;
provide, by the analytics module, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system;
rate, by the analytics module, performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity; and
indicate, by the analytics module, one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity.
Conway discloses:
providing, by a score assessment module, a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise and user of the customer management system (see Conway, paragraph [0032], where the graphical user interface includes a call statistics visual field selectable by a user for displaying statistics pertaining to the caller interaction events; the statistics in the call statistics visual field can include, for example: call duration, caller talk time, agent talk time, a caller satisfaction score, an indication of the number of silences greater than a predetermined time period, and an agent satisfaction score);
compiling, by an analytics module, one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data and end user data (see Conway, paragraph [0138], where a CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 566 Is shown in Fig. 20; the client satisfaction report 466 is a summary level report that identifies analysis results by a client for a specified time interval);
rating, by the analytics module of the server, performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity (see Conway, paragraph [0033], where the graphical user interface can also include a number of other visual fields; for example, the graphical user interface can include a caller satisfaction report field for displaying one or more caller satisfaction reports, or a user note field for enabling a user of the system to place a note with the first caller interaction event; see also paragraph [0138], where a CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 566 Is shown in Fig. 20; the client satisfaction report 466 is a summary level report that identifies analysis results by a client for a specified time interval); and
indicating, by the analytics module, one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity (see Conway, paragraph [0139], where CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 466 includes a number of calls column 470 (total number of calls analyzed for the associated client during the specified reporting interval), an average duration column 472 (total analyzed talk time for all calls analyzed for the associated client divided by the total number of calls analyzed for the client), a greater than (“>”) 150% duration column 474 (percentage of calls for a client that exceed 150% of the average duration for all calls per call type), a greater than 90 second hold column 476 (percentage of calls for a client where the call center agent places the client on hold for greater than 90 seconds), a great than 30 second silence column 478 (percentage of calls for a client where there is a period of continuous silence within a call greater than 30 seconds), a customer dissatisfaction column 480 (percentage of calls for a client where the caller exhibits dissatisfaction or distress – these calls are in the dissatisfied caller and upset caller/issue unresolved folders).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Grewal in view of Conway does not disclose provide, by the analytics module, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system. Erhart discloses providing, by the analytics module, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system (see Erhart, paragraph [0043], where the contact center 102 can modify a non-direct contact, from a social media network 116, 118, and/or 120, into a directed contact by sending a response message directly to a customer’s communication device 114).
Grewal, Conway, and Erhart are all directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal and Conway with Erhart as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 10, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the system of Claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to create and storing, by the system administration module, entity data and configuration data (see Grewal, paragraph [0019], where through the use of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1, multiple organizations, referred to herein as ‘tenants’ may concurrently utilize the computing resources provided by the system 100; the illustrative computing system 100 shown in Fig. 1 includes a CRM server computer 102; the CRM server computer 102 executes a CRM application 106 and maintains one or more associated databases, described more fully herein; the CRM application 106 provides functionality for managing relationships with business customers, including the capture, storage, and analysis of customer information).
Regarding Claim 11, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the the system of Claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to download or push, by the update module, one or more updated modules or data of the customer management system (see Grewal, paragraph [0022], where the CRM application 106 operates in conjunction with a database server application 112 which also executes on the CRM server computer 102; the database server application 112 provides functionality for creating, maintaining, accessing, and updating one or more databases).
Regarding Claim 12, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the the system of Claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to:
Grewal does not disclose calculating, by the analytics module, an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers. Conway discloses calculating, by the analytics module, an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers (see Conway, paragraph [0146], where the CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 includes a location column 504 (this identifies the call center location that received the call) … a greater than 90 second hold column 512 (percentage of calls for a CSR agent where the CSR places the caller on hold for greater than 90 seconds); see also Fig. 26, where CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 tracks composite statistics for all CSR agents at location).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 14, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the the system of Claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to:
Grewal does not disclose providing, by the analytics module of the server, an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers. Conway discloses providing, by the analytics module of the server, an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers (see Conway, paragraph [0146], where the CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 includes a location column 504 (this identifies the call center location that received the call) … a greater than 90 second hold column 512 (percentage of calls for a CSR agent where the CSR places the caller on hold for greater than 90 seconds); see also Fig. 26, where CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 tracks composite statistics for all CSR agents at location).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 15, Grewal discloses non-transitory computer-readable medium embodied with software for customer management, the software when executed using one or more computer systems is programmed to:
provide, by a system administration module of a server of a customer management system, one or more services to configure one or more end user systems, wherein the server comprises a processor and memory (see Grewal, paragraph [0019], where through the use of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1, multiple organizations, referred to herein as ‘tenants’ may concurrently utilize the computing resources provided by the system 100; the illustrative computing system 100 shown in Fig. 1 includes a CRM server computer 102; the CRM server computer 102 executes a CRM application 106 and maintains one or more associated databases, described more fully herein; the CRM application 106 provides functionality for managing relationships with business customers, including the capture, storage, and analysis of customer information);
identify, by the system administration module, one or more entities of the customer management system to generate one or more configurations specific to each of the one or more entities (see Grewal, paragraph [0007], where a private, unshared database is associated with a particular tenant and is inaccessible to the other tenants; the private, unshared databases are utilized to store application data for an associated tenant, along with any customizations to the application implemented by the tenant); and
update, by an update module of the server, one or more modules and data of the customer management system (see Grewal, paragraph [0022], where the CRM application 106 operates in conjunction with a database server application 112 which also executes on the CRM server computer 102; the database server application 112 provides functionality for creating, maintaining, accessing, and updating one or more databases).
Grewal does not disclose:
provide, by a score assessment module of the server, a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise and user of the customer management system;
compile, by an analytics module of the server, one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data and end user data;
provide, by the analytics module of the server, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system;
rate, by the analytics module of the server, performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity; and
indiciate, by the analytics module of the server, one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity.
Conway discloses:
providing, by a score assessment module of the server, a score for one or more of: an entity, an end user, a customer, a company, an enterprise and user of the customer management system (see Conway, paragraph [0032], where the graphical user interface includes a call statistics visual field selectable by a user for displaying statistics pertaining to the caller interaction events; the statistics in the call statistics visual field can include, for example: call duration, caller talk time, agent talk time, a caller satisfaction score, an indication of the number of silences greater than a predetermined time period, and an agent satisfaction score);
compiling, by an analytics module of the server, one or more of: a hierarchy, ticket data, entity data and end user data (see Conway, paragraph [0138], where a CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 566 Is shown in Fig. 20; the client satisfaction report 466 is a summary level report that identifies analysis results by a client for a specified time interval);
rating, by the analytics module of the server, performance of an entity based on satisfaction scores of end user systems handled by that entity (see Conway, paragraph [0033], where the graphical user interface can also include a number of other visual fields; for example, the graphical user interface can include a caller satisfaction report field for displaying one or more caller satisfaction reports, or a user note field for enabling a user of the system to place a note with the first caller interaction event; see also paragraph [0138], where a CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 566 Is shown in Fig. 20; the client satisfaction report 466 is a summary level report that identifies analysis results by a client for a specified time interval); and
indicating, by the analytics module of the server, one or more of a category, topic, subtopic, agent, end user that are associated with a response time not met by an entity (see Conway, paragraph [0139], where CLIENT SATISFACTION REPORT 466 includes a number of calls column 470 (total number of calls analyzed for the associated client during the specified reporting interval), an average duration column 472 (total analyzed talk time for all calls analyzed for the associated client divided by the total number of calls analyzed for the client), a greater than (“>”) 150% duration column 474 (percentage of calls for a client that exceed 150% of the average duration for all calls per call type), a greater than 90 second hold column 476 (percentage of calls for a client where the call center agent places the client on hold for greater than 90 seconds), a great than 30 second silence column 478 (percentage of calls for a client where there is a period of continuous silence within a call greater than 30 seconds), a customer dissatisfaction column 480 (percentage of calls for a client where the caller exhibits dissatisfaction or distress – these calls are in the dissatisfied caller and upset caller/issue unresolved folders).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Grewal in view of Conway does not disclose providing, by the analytics module of the server, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system. Erhart discloses providing, by the analytics module of the server, data to reconfigure one or more components of the customer management system (see Erhart, paragraph [0043], where the contact center 102 can modify a non-direct contact, from a social media network 116, 118, and/or 120, into a directed contact by sending a response message directly to a customer’s communication device 114).
Grewal, Conway, and Erhart are all directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal and Conway with Erhart as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 17, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, wherein the software is further programmed to create and store, by the system administration module, entity data and configuration data (see Grewal, paragraph [0019], where through the use of the system 100 shown in Fig. 1, multiple organizations, referred to herein as ‘tenants’ may concurrently utilize the computing resources provided by the system 100; the illustrative computing system 100 shown in Fig. 1 includes a CRM server computer 102; the CRM server computer 102 executes a CRM application 106 and maintains one or more associated databases, described more fully herein; the CRM application 106 provides functionality for managing relationships with business customers, including the capture, storage, and analysis of customer information).
Regarding Claim 18, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, wherein the software is further programmed to download or push, by the update module, one or more updated modules or data of the customer management system (see Grewal, paragraph [0022], where the CRM application 106 operates in conjunction with a database server application 112 which also executes on the CRM server computer 102; the database server application 112 provides functionality for creating, maintaining, accessing, and updating one or more databases).
Regarding Claim 19, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Claim 15, wherein the software is further programmed to:
Grewal does not disclose calculating, by the analytics module, an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers. Conway discloses calculating, by the analytics module, an average response time for two or more entities, wherein the two or more entities comprise customer service centers (see Conway, paragraph [0146], where the CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 includes a location column 504 (this identifies the call center location that received the call) … a greater than 90 second hold column 512 (percentage of calls for a CSR agent where the CSR places the caller on hold for greater than 90 seconds); see also Fig. 26, where CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 tracks composite statistics for all CSR agents at location).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 7, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Grewal does not disclose providing, by the analytics module of the server, an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers. Conway discloses providing, by the analytics module of the server, an average score for one or more topics or one or more subtopics to one or more customer service centers (see Conway, paragraph [0146], where the CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 includes a location column 504 (this identifies the call center location that received the call) … a greater than 90 second hold column 512 (percentage of calls for a CSR agent where the CSR places the caller on hold for greater than 90 seconds); see also Fig. 26, where CORPORATE SUMMARY BY LOCATION REPORT 502 tracks composite statistics for all CSR agents at location).
Grewal and Conway are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Conway as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grewal, Conway, and Erhart as applied to Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 above, and further in view of Doering (PG Pub. No. 2014/0074539 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Grewal does not disclose changing, by the system administration module, which modules are stored singularly or redundantly. Doering discloses changing, by the system administration module, which modules are stored singularly or redundantly (see Doering, paragraph [0037], where services provided by the cloud infrastructure system may include a host of services that are made available to users of the cloud infrastructure system on demand such as online data storage and backup solutions).
Grewal and Doering are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Doering as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 9, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the system of Claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to:
Grewal does not disclose changing, by the system administration module, which modules are stored singularly or redundantly. Doering discloses changing, by the system administration module, which modules are stored singularly or redundantly (see Doering, paragraph [0037], where services provided by the cloud infrastructure system may include a host of services that are made available to users of the cloud infrastructure system on demand such as online data storage and backup solutions).
Grewal and Doering are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Doering as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 16, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Claim 15, wherein the software is further programmed to:
Grewal does not disclose changing, by the system administration module, which modules are stored singularly or redundantly. Doering discloses changing, by the system administration module, which modules are stored singularly or redundantly (see Doering, paragraph [0037], where services provided by the cloud infrastructure system may include a host of services that are made available to users of the cloud infrastructure system on demand such as online data storage and backup solutions).
Grewal and Doering are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Doering as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grewal, Conway, and Erhart as applied to Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 above, and further in view of Bezeau (PG Pub. No. 2006/0117065 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Grewal does not disclose generating, by the system administration module, a particularized user interface specific to an entity based on one or more of: an industry of an entity, one or more types of customers served by the entity and one or more types of products sold by the entity. Bezeau discloses generating, by the system administration module, a particularized user interface specific to an entity based on one or more of: an industry of an entity, one or more types of customers served by the entity and one or more types of products sold by the entity (see Bezeau, paragraph [0005], where base CRM applications can be specialized or tailored to address the needs of a specific industry; such industry-specific CRM applications are referred to as vertical CRM applications (verticals); moreover, a base CRM application or vertical may be tailored to address the needs of a particular customer company using the application).
Grewal and Bezeau are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Bezeau as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 13, Grewal in view of Conway and Erhart discloses the system of Claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to:
Grewal does not disclose generating, by the system administration module, a particularized user interface specific to an entity based on one or more of: an industry of an entity, one or more types of customers served by the entity and one or more types of products sold by the entity. Bezeau discloses generating, by the system administration module, a particularized user interface specific to an entity based on one or more of: an industry of an entity, one or more types of customers served by the entity and one or more types of products sold by the entity (see Bezeau, paragraph [0005], where base CRM applications can be specialized or tailored to address the needs of a specific industry; such industry-specific CRM applications are referred to as vertical CRM applications (verticals); moreover, a base CRM application or vertical may be tailored to address the needs of a particular customer company using the application).
Grewal and Bezeau are both directed to CRM systems. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Grewal with Bezeau as it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2141(I)(A)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAD AGHARAHIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-9864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571-272-4080. 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.
/FARHAD AGHARAHIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights