Ex Parte Erhart et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2017

14134533 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2017)

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.
14/134,533 12/19/2013 George Erhart 4366CSM-239 9089
48500 7590 09/29/2017
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
POPE, KHAR YE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2652
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GEORGE ERHART, VALENTAINE C. MATULA,
and DAVID SKIBA
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4 and 11—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Williams (US 2005/0105712 Al; May 19, 2005) and Huet (US
2005/0213743 Al; Sept. 29, 2005). Final Act. 2-7.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Williams, Huet, and Kalahasti (US 2008/0056464 Al; Mar. 6, 2008). Final
Act. 7.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Williams, Huet, Kalahasti, and Schachter (US 2013/0266127 Al; Oct. 10,
2013). Final Act. 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Williams, Huet, and Adamson (US 8,265,261 Bl; Sept. 11, 2012). Final
Act. 9-10.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Williams, Huet, and Schachter. Final Act. 10.
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ invention relates to a “communication channel used by [a]
contact center to communicate with a customer.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is
illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
providing a first communication channel;
providing a second communication channel as a media
escalation channel;
2
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
determining that the first communications channel has
been established between a customer and an agent of a contact
center;
upon determining the first communications channel has
been established between the customer and the agent of the
contact center, monitoring content of information exchanged
between the customer and the agent over the first
communications channel for an occurrence of a predetermined
content having an attribute identified as associated with a media
escalation; and
upon detecting the occurrence of the predetermined
content within the first communications channel, notifying the
agent to transition the information exchanged between the
customer and the agent over the first communications channel
to the second communications channel.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-4 and 11-19 over Williams
and Huet
Claims 1, 3, 11—13, 16, 17, and 19
The Examiner finds Williams and Huet teach all the limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 2—4. Particularly, the Examiner finds Williams teaches all
the limitations of claim 1, except for (claim 1) “providing a first
communication channel; providing a second communication channel as a
media escalation channel;” which the Examiner finds is taught by Huet.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner reasons
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
method taught by Williams with the method as taught by Huet
to shorten the wait times of call center customers by allowing
routine and simple tasks to be handled by automated resources
3
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
allowing live operators to focus on specialized and complex
tasks in an effort to increase call center efficiency.
Final Act. 4.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
i.
Appellant has reviewed Huet at the cited location and
elsewhere and fails to find any teaching or reasonable
suggestion of the claimed “media escalation channel.” While
Huet may escalate the handling of a user to a live agent, and the
use of a channel selected by a customer (See, Huet || 0053-
0057), Huet is silent to escalating the media channel utilized
based upon the claimed, “detecting the occurrence of the
predetermined content.” Despite some similar terminology,
Huet relies on a “conversational agent (CA)” to screen calls and
route the call to an agent based on the content. For example,
when a customer says, “I lost my password” (Huet, | 0034) a
security expert is enqueued to call the customer at a later time
(Huet, | 0039) and the original “CA” is no longer involved in
the call.
App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 2—\.
ii.
While Williams and Huet may disclose escalating a call
from one agent (human or automated) to another agent, neither
teach nor reasonably suggest “notifying the agent to transition
the information exchanged between the customer and the agent
over the first communications channel to the second
communications channel,” as required by claim 1.
App. Br. 9-10; see also Reply Br. 4—5.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
4
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
We do not see any error in the contested findings of the Examiner.
Nor do we see any error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (i) and (ii),
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner finds Huet teaches (claim 1) “providing a first
communication channel; providing a second communication channel as a
media escalation channel.” Final Act. 4 (citing Huet || 67, 69, 73—74); see
also Ans. 2—3. We agree and adopt this finding as our own.
Huet (| 67) discloses “[a] communications network 112 connects the
client 108 with the server 104 and optionally the second client 110 that is
operated by a live agent.” See also Huet Fig. 4. Huet (| 74) discloses “[t]he
conversational agent 228, which can reside on the server 104, provides
information for escalated cases to the call center 250 for action by the live
agents.” See also Huet Fig. 4. Thus, Huet teaches (claim 1) “providing a
first communication channel” (Huet’s client 108 connected to server 104);
“providing a second communication channel as a media escalation channel”
(Huet’s client 108 connected to client 110, which is reasonably disclosed as
a media escalation channel because the live agent handles escalated cases).
See Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3 (“If the automated agent is unable to
resolve the case the user is informed that the case is being escalated to a live
agent and the live agent calls the user (i.e.[,] voice call) at the telephone
5
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
number associated with the user.”); see also Huet Abstract (“A
conversational agent receives a textual user message and escalates the user
to a live agent if predetermined criteria are met.”).
The Examiner finds Williams teaches (claim 1) “upon detecting the
occurrence of the predetermined content within the first communications
channel, notifying the agent to transition the information exchanged between
the customer and the agent over the first communications channel to the
second communications channel.” Final Act. 3^4 (citing Williams | 65); see
also Ans. 3^4. We agree and adopt this finding as our own. Williams (1 65)
discloses
For example, customer C calls a company’s customer service
organization to close his account. Customer C is greeted with
an automated system that introduces itself and confirms the
customer’s name. After confirming his name, Customer C is
given a brief explanation of how the automated system works,
including sample inquiries. He is then prompted to state his
inquiry in his own words. Customer C states that he would like
to close his account with the company. The automated system
asks the customer to confirm his account number. Customer C
punches in his account number on the telephone keypad. The
system tells Customer C to please hold on while he is
transferred to an agent. The system passes the call to the
appropriate agent pool for this transaction. The next available
agent receives a recording of customer C’s question and
receives a screen pop with his account information.
Thus, Williams teaches (claim 1) “upon detecting the occurrence of
the predetermined content within the first communications channel” (in that
Williams discloses an automated system detecting that a customer wants to
close his account, and collecting the customer’s account number), “notifying
the agent to transition the information exchanged between the customer and
the agent over the first communications channel to the second
6
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
communications channel” (in that Williams discloses the contact center’s
human agent taking over the call such that further information is exchanged
with the contact center’s human agent instead of the contact center’s
automated agent). See Final Act. 3^4; see also Ans. 3^4.
With regard to the transition from customer-to-contact center via
automated agent to customer-to-contact center via human agent being from a
first communications channel to a second communications channel, this is
taught when combined with Huet as discussed above. See Final Act. 4
(citing Huet || 67, 69, 73—74); Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also Ans. 3^4
(“The combined teachings of Williams and Huet support an interpretation of
the live agent communicating with the user over the second communication
channel and the live agent being provided with at least a portion of the
transcript of the conversation that has transpired between the conversational
agent and the customer at the time of the transfer of the customer to the live
agent.”).
The Examiner articulates a reason for combining the references that is
rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. See
Final Act. 4, Ans. 4; see also Huet 174 (“The conversational agent 228,
which can reside on the server 104, provides information for escalated cases
to the call center 250 for action by the live agents.”). Appellants’ have not
presented any particularized arguments as to why these reasons are
erroneous. See App. Br. 8—10, Reply Br. 2—5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 11—13, 16, 17, and 19, which
are not separately argued with particularity.
7
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
Claims 2, 15, and 18
The Examiner finds Huet teaches (claim 2) “wherein the first
communications channel is terminated upon detecting the occurrence of the
predetermined content.” See Final Act. 5 (citing Huet | 86); see also Ans. 4
(citing Huet || 43—63).
Appellants present the following principal argument: “Huet teaches
‘taking over’ as a result of the customer being escalated to a live agent. In
contrast, Appellant’s claim 2 terminates the first communication channel
upon detecting the predetermined content.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br.
5 (“Huet’s decision to disconnect is not based upon the occurrence of
‘password’ or other content, it is entirely based on the call concluding as
precipitated by a determination that another agent needs to resolve the
issue.”).
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner.
Huet (| 86) discloses
A customer can be escalated to a live agent in a variety of ways.
For instance, a link to the live agent can be provided to the
customer by the conversational agent 228. Alternatively, the
email address of the live agent can be provided, or the live
agent’s telephone number.
Thus, Huet teaches (claim 2) “wherein the first communications
channel is terminated” in that Huet’s, for example, providing an email
address or telephone number of the live agent reasonably suggests to a
skilled artisan that the communication channel to the conversational agent is
terminated. Huet also teaches (claim 2) “upon detecting the occurrence of
the predetermined content” in that Huet escalates to the live agent based, at
least in some sense, on the content provided to the conversational agent. See
8
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
also Huet Abstract (“A conversational agent receives a textual user message
and escalates the user to a live agent if predetermined criteria are met.”).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 18, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
Claims 4 and 14
The Examiner finds Huet teaches (claim 4) “wherein the second
communications channel is automatically established without receiving input
from the agent, the method further comprising, delaying at least one of the
establishing of the second communications channel and the terminating of
the first communications channel until the agent responds to the
notification.” Final Act 5 (citing Huet | 86); see also Ans. 5 (citing Huet |
64).
Appellants present the following principal argument: “Appellant has
reviewed Huet’s 10086 and finds only a vague teaching of ‘taking over’ but
no teaching of any communication channel being terminated and, therefore,
it necessarily follows no teaching is provided wherein the ‘terminating’ is
delayed.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 6—7.
We do not see any error in the contested finding of the Examiner.
Huet (| 86) discloses
A customer can be escalated to a live agent in a variety of ways.
For instance, a link to the live agent can be provided to the
customer by the conversational agent 228. Alternatively, the
email address of the live agent can be provided, or the live
agent’s telephone number.
Thus, Huet teaches (claim 4) “wherein the second communications
channel is automatically established without receiving input from the agent”
9
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
in that Huet reasonably describes that the communication channel is
established by the customer, establishment is automatic at least in the sense
that providing the link, email address, or telephone number is automatic
upon escalation. Huet also teaches (claim 4) “the method further
comprising, delaying at least one of the establishing of the second
communications channel and the terminating of the first communications
channel until the agent responds to the notification” in that Huet’s
establishing of the second communication channel is reasonably described as
delayed until the live agent answers the telephone when the customer calls
the live agent’s telephone number.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14, which is not separately argued
with particularity.
The Remaining Rejections
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any of the remaining
rejections. See App. Br. 8—11, Reply Br. 2—7.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 5 and 8 as obvious over Williams, Huet, and Kalahasti; we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Williams, Huet,
Kalahasti, and Schachter; we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as
obvious over Williams, Huet, and Adamson; and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 10 and 20 as obvious over Williams, Huet, and
Schachter.
10
Appeal 2017-006226
Application 14/134,533
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11