Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 2/8/24 has been considered by the examiner.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. patent No. US 12,340,378 B2 and claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,928,692 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because directed to monitoring user traffic of contact center and scaling a number of licenses available.
19217430
US12,340378 B2
US11,928,692
Claims 1, 5, 11, 13-16 and 19
A method, comprising:
deploying, by a server device based on configurations for a contact center service for an event, the contact center service by provisioning an amount of server space for the contact center service, wherein the configurations indicate a term defining a limited period of time of the event;
determining, by the server device, an extension to the term based on a change to the event, wherein the change to the event is determined while the contact center service is deployed;
updating, by the server device, the term according to the extension; and
executing, by the server device, an executable file to terminate the contact center service at an expiration of the updated term of the event, wherein executing the executable file causes a deprovisioning of the amount of server space for the contact center service.
Claims 6
wherein executing the executable file causes a disconnection of end points from the contact center service.
Claims 5 & 13
monitoring, by the server device based on the deployment of the contact center service, user traffic of the contact center service at one or more times throughout the event; and
scaling, by the server device based on the user traffic, the amount of server space provisioned for the contact center service and a number of access privileges established for end points to connect to the contact center service.
Claims 1, 9-10, 12, 15, 18
receiving a request at a server device to provide a contact center service for an event;
monitoring user traffic of the contact center service;
scaling a number of licenses available for the contact center service and an amount of provisioned server space for the contact center service based on the user traffic; and
executing a closing executable file to terminate the contact center service based on an expiration of the event, wherein the closing executable file causes the server device to deprovision server space for the contact center service and disconnect end points connected to the contact center service.
Claims 10, 18 - generating an executable file that causes deployment of the contact center service when executed, wherein the contact center service is based on a contact center service template that corresponds to requested configurations; and
executing the executable file to deploy the contact center service.
Claim 12 - scaling a number of contact center agents deployed for contact center engagements based on the user traffic, wherein the closing executable file causes the server device to revoke access privileges established for the number of contact center agents.
Claims 1, 9 and 13
receiving a request, by a server device, to provide a contact center service for an event, wherein the request includes configurations of the contact center service, a term of the event, and one or more service features available for attendees of the event to use;
generating, by the server device, an executable file that causes deployment of the contact center service when executed, wherein the contact center service is based on a contact center service template that corresponds to the requested configurations; executing, by the server device, the executable file to deploy the contact center service;
monitoring, by the server device, user traffic of the contact center service;
scaling, by the server device, a number of licenses available for communication software access for the contact center service, an amount of provisioned server space for the contact center service, and a number of contact center agents deployed for contact center engagements based on the user traffic; and
executing, by the server device, a closing executable file to terminate the contact center service based on an expiration of the term, wherein the closing executable file causes the server device to deprovision server space for the contact center service, disconnect end points connected to communication software associated with the contact center service, and revoke access privileges established for the number of contact center agents.
Claim 2-4, 12, 17
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 7, 18
Claim 2
Claims 2-8
Claim 8
Claim 4
Claim 10
Claim 9
Claim 6
Claim 4
Claim 10, 20
Claim 20
Claim 20
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, Claims 11-15 are directed to a non-transitory medium and Claims 16-20 are directed to a system. Thus, this claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claim falls within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 11 and 16 recite methods that deploying, based on configurations for a contact center service for an event, the contact center service by provisioning an amount of space for the contact center service, wherein the configurations indicate a term defining a limited period of time of the event; determining, an extension to the term based on a change to the event, wherein the change to the event is determined while the contact center service is deployed; updating, the term according to the extension; and executing, to terminate the contact center service at an expiration of the updated term of the event.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as by a server device, server space, , an executable file, executing the executable file causes a deprovisioning of the amount of server space for the contact center service; non-transitory medium; a memory, a processor), the claims are directed to providing contact center services for an event. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing contact center services. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – by a server device, server space, , an executable file, executing the executable file causes a deprovisioning of the amount of server space for the contact center service; non-transitory medium; a memory, a processor. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further [0076] recites the termination may be effected by manual operation, such as an operator device executing a file configured to cause one or more scripts, code, or the like to run to cause the above deprovisioning, disconnection, and revocation. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. a) The additional element merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide contact center services. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to the server device, server space, , an executable file, executing the executable file causes a deprovisioning of the amount of server space for the contact center service; non-transitory medium; a memory, a processor, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0084] details “ service device includes software to provide service for event. [0078] software accessed by operator device [0039] the processor 202 can include another type of device, or multiple devices, configured for manipulating or processing information. ” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data, which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers. Further, the step of executing a closing executable file to terminate…is simply a user using a computer as a tool to operate software (Spec [0076]). Vymenets (US 2018/0205825) at [0304] recites an administrator of a contact center may control access to features or permissions for the agents of a contact center. Accordingly, the features available to a particular agent through their personalized agent control dashboard may vary agent to agent. Agent access, permissions, set-up, etc. may be controlled via the agents dashboard UI 1200. Singh (2017/0026830) recites Fig 5 access revoked after expiration of meeting duration. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the computing device provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore the processor/device amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and are well-understood, routine and conventional limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, claims to a system and computer-readable storage medium are held ineligible for the same reason, e.g., the generically-recited computers add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 add additional limitations, for example but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as representative Independent claims.
Claims 2-4, 12, 17 further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by defining change determining criteria including determining, by the server device, the change to the event based on information accessible within an event system in communication with the contact center service; determining, by the server device, the change to the event based on input received from an event system in communication with the contact center service or from an operator device; determining, by the server device, the change to the event based on data scraped from a website or application associated with the event. These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5-6, 13, 18 further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by monitoring, user traffic of the contact center service at one or more times throughout the event; and scaling, by the server device based on the user traffic, the amount of server space provisioned for the contact center service and a number of access privileges established for end points to connect to the contact center service; executing the executable file causes a disconnection of end points from the contact center service. However claims lack technical features such as how monitoring or scaling is performed. These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 7-9, 14-15, 19 further limit the abstract idea of independent claims by defining the configurations templates selected by an operator of the event; wherein one or more service features of the contact center service are facilitated using a virtual receptionist configured to interface with attendees of the event; wherein the configurations enable broadcasts from the contact center service over one or more external services; wherein the configurations are based on a contact center service template; wherein the contact center service is deployed using contact center as a service software. These limitations merely adds the words apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception , or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10, 20 further limit the abstract idea by defining the contact center service features that correspond to contact center agent engagements to include at least one of a telephony modality, a video modality, a chat modality, a text message modality, or a social media modality. The service features are recited are high level of generality. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computing system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Subject Matter free of prior art
The closest prior art, Vymenets (US 2018/0205825) teaches configuring a contact center for evet according to terns of event ([0171]), facilitating one or more service features according to configuration ([0184]-[0185] routing strategy configured based on requirements); terminating service based on expiration of term ([0397).
Singh (US 2017/0026830) teaches determining an extension to the term ([0056]); revoking access privileges upon expiration of term (Fig 5); determining an extension to the term based on a detected change to the event ([0056] at step 501, the access module 213 keeps a constant check to determine if the meeting session is expiring. At Step 502, the access module 213 determines the duration of meeting session nearing expiration, the access module 213 performs a check to determine if the meeting session is extendable. At step 503, the access module 213 determines that the meeting session is found extendable and the customer is prompted to raise a request in order to extend the meeting session. At step 504, the access module 213 prompts the mobile agent to acknowledge the extension request raised by the customer.), wherein the expiration of the term occurs at an end of the extension.([0057] the access module 213 continues the mobile agent access to customer data during extended period.); revoking access privileges established for contact center agents of the contact center service upon the expiration of the term. (Fig 5 access revoked after expiration of meeting duration, Claim 13)
Doumar (US 2021/0306463) teaches map the telephone number to telephone endpoint for attendee ([0220]).
Kugler (US 9,160851 B2) teaches responsive to the termination of the contact center service, map the telephone number to a telephony endpoint configured for event attendee support after the expiration of the term (Col 21 lines 41-55 Post Call Action Option: Specifies the set of dynamic parameter placeholder values that are available for selection in the dynamic parameter section. Col 23 lines 5-10 The call distributor module 260 captures the sale and callback engine 250. In such instances, the sold account may be matched to its last phone number, and a “call me back” or “SMS me back’ feature may be implemented.)
Stott (US 2015/0200786) discloses security and access policies. A meeting object is leveraged to store meeting attributes and pointers to meeting-related content. A meeting object, for instance, can serve as a manifest for meeting attributes.
Zhakov (CN108287750 A) discloses method for dynamically according to proportion to the contact center tenant resource based on detecting or predicting contact center tenant demands of increased or decreased. processor monitors and collects contact center operation data. the processor is responsive to the monitoring detecting associated with contact center operation state. The processor dynamically adjusting at least one hardware or software resource contact center according to the detected state.
Wei (WO2019109952A1) discloses acquiring a service volume for each service in a plurality of services of a user; determining if a first service is present in the plurality of services, wherein a ratio of a service volume of the first service to a software license assigned to the first service has reached a preset threshold; and adjusting the software license between the plurality of services if the first service is present in the plurality of services
NPL, Role based access control, 2002 discloses OASIS model is the idea of credential-based role activation. The credentials that a user possesses, together with side conditions that depend on the state of the environment, will authorize him or her to activate a number of roles. At any given time, a user will activate a subset of these potential roles in order to carry out some specific task, thus embodying the principle of least privilege in an organization.
However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest at least “determining, by the server device, an extension to the term based on a change to the event, wherein the change to the event is determined while the contact center service is deployed; and executing, by the server device, an executable file to terminate the contact center service at an expiration of the updated term of the event, wherein executing the executable file causes a deprovisioning of the amount of server space for the contact center service.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ma (US 2020/0234251A1) discloses a method of a smart meeting system, including in response to receiving an indication that a first meeting has ended, transmitting a survey to attendees of the first meeting, receiving, from the attendees, the survey, wherein the received survey includes feedback from the attendees
Khalid (US 10511658) discloses a computing resource associated with a user is scheduled to undergo a transition. Prior to the scheduled transition, the computing resource is placed in a pending state. The user is notified that the computing resource is scheduled to undergo the transition.
Keshava (US 10581820) discloses a key set is generated that includes a previous key and expiration time, a current key and expiration time, and a next key and expiration time, and stores the key set in a database table and a memory cache associated with the database table. At the current key expiration time, the key set is rolled over, including retrieving the key set from the database table, updating the previous key and expiration time with the current key and expiration time, updating the current key and expiration time with the next key and expiration time, generating a new key and expiration time
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights