Avaya Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 18, 2021

2020005315 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/794,372 07/08/2015 John F. Buford 648.0143 9068 93379 7590 03/18/2021 Setter Roche LLP 1860 Blake Street Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER WALSH, EMMETT K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): pair_avaya@firsttofile.com sarah@setterroche.com uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN F. BUFORD Appeal 2020-005315 Application 14/794,372 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–202. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avaya Inc. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The obviousness rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn. Answer 3. Appeal 2020-005315 Application 14/794,372 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter is “related to the operation of a delivery service using unmanned delivery devices and, in particular, to allowing an agent to communicate through an unmanned delivery device.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of facilitating an unmanned delivery service, the method comprising: in a delivery management system remote to an unmanned delivery device: determining that a first agent of a contact center should communicate through an unmanned delivery device at a first delivery location, wherein the unmanned delivery device transports a first item for delivery to the first delivery location; after determining that the first agent should communicate, receiving, from the unmanned delivery device, an indication that the unmanned delivery device is at the first delivery location; in response to receiving the indication, the delivery management system selecting the first agent from a pool of agents and connecting a first client system operated by the first agent to the unmanned delivery device; and exchanging communications for the agent between the first client system and the unmanned delivery device. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 9, 11–15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gentry (US 9,747,901 B1, issued Aug. 29, 2017), Huck (US 6,985,576 B1, issued Jan. 10, 2006), and Aykin (US 8,612,272 B1, issued Dec. 17,2013). Appeal 2020-005315 Application 14/794,372 3 The Examiner rejects claims 6, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gentry, Huck, Aykin, and Geppert et al., (US 2010/0246800 A1, published Sept. 30, 2010) (“Geppert”). The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gentry, Huck, Aykin, and Robinson et.al. (US 2015/0106291 A1, published Apr. 16, 2015) (“Robinson”). OPINION Claim 1 recites, in part: [D]etermining that a first agent of a contact center should communicate through an unmanned delivery device . . . after [the above] determining . . . receiving, from the unmanned delivery device, an indication that the unmanned delivery device is at the first delivery location; in response to receiving the indication, the delivery management system selecting the first agent from a pool of agents and connecting a first client system operated by the first agent to the unmanned delivery device. We are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments that the combination of references does not disclose the entirety of the above excerpted claim language. Appeal Br. 7–8; see also Reply Br. 2–4. The Examiner finds that Gentry discloses the above “indication” of the vehicle being “at the first delivery location” in the passages that describe that the unmanned delivery vehicle detects the presence of a person 204, and hears the person 204, who “may ask to speak to a live representative.” Gentry, 3:26–30, 4:9–12 (cited at Final Act. 4; see also Answer 3 (“Gentry further teaches the receipt of an indication that the drone is at the first delivery location in the form of a receipt of a request for the user to talk to a representative when the drone arrives at the delivery location.”)). We note Appeal 2020-005315 Application 14/794,372 4 that this indication is not always received, because it depends on the user at the delivery location making the request, which would not, we expect, occur in every delivery. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that this indication in Gentry does not occur “after” the “determining that a first agent of a contact center should communicate through an unmanned delivery device.” Final Act. 5 (“To the extent that Gentry in view of Huck does not explicitly teach that the determination that the agent of the contact center should communicate is performed prior to the receipt of the indication that the delivery device is at the location, Aykin teaches this element.”) Specifically, the Examiner cites to Aykin, column 3, lines 10–35. Final Act. 5, Answer 4. There, Aykin discusses that “[a]gent schedules are generated over a period of time,” such as days or weeks, including start times, end times, breaks, and days off. Aykin, 3:10–34. The Appellant points out that the “agent schedules of Aykin do not include determining that an agent (e.g., the first agent of claim 1) should communicate with a particular customer,” because “Aykin’s scheduling is merely meant to ensure contact center agents are staffed to meet various performance targets (e.g., to ensure 80% of customer contacts are answered in 20 seconds or less).” Appeal Br. 7. Thus, the Appellant argues, “Aykin does not disclose determining that a particular customer should communicate with one of the agents staffed at the call center prior to any occurrence, such as a delivery device arriving at a delivery location, as required by claim 1.” Id. at 8. We agree. Scheduling agents to be at work merely addresses having someone available in case a first agent may need to communicate, if asked to Appeal 2020-005315 Application 14/794,372 5 by a user at the delivery location. But this does not demonstrate that it has already been determined “that a first agent of a contact center should communicate through an unmanned delivery device,” as claimed. The cited section of Aykin does not determine even that a user might communicate, but only that an agent is available in case the need arises. The Examiner has thus failed to demonstrate the obviousness of this particular claim language over the three cited references, because the Examiner has not shown a disclosure of determining that an agent should communicate through the delivery device, after which the indication is received that the device is at the delivery location, as recited in claim 1. On this basis, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent system claim 11 similarly recites, in part: [T]he unmanned delivery device indicates to a delivery management system, after the delivery management system has determined that the first agent should communicate through the unmanned delivery device at the first delivery location, that the unmanned delivery device is at a first delivery location, which causes the delivery management system to select the first agent from a pool of agents . . . to exchange communications for the agent with the unmanned delivery device. Independent system claim 17 similarly recites, in part: “after the processing system determines that the first agent should communicate, receive the indication [that the unmanned delivery device is at the first delivery location] and connect a first client system operated by the first agent to the unmanned delivery device in response to the indication.” The Examiner rejected these claims with similar, if not identical, citations and reasoning as for claim 1. Final Act. 9–11, 13–16. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 17. Appeal 2020-005315 Application 14/794,372 6 We also do not sustain the rejections of the claims that depend from claims 1, 11, and 17, for the same reasons as for claim 1, and because the additional references cited with respect to the rejections of claims 6, 10, 16, and 18 do not remedy the shortcomings in the combination of Gentry, Huck, and Aykin. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are reversed. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–5, 7, 9, 11– 15, 17, 19, 20 103 Gentry, Huck, Aykin 1–5, 7, 9, 11– 15, 17, 19, 20 6, 16, 18 103 Gentry, Huck, Aykin, Geppert 6, 16, 18 10 103 Gentry, Huck, Aykin, Robinson 10 Overall Outcome 1–7, 9–20 REVERSED