Prior art — US Patent 11240183

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent 11,240,183

An analysis of the prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 11,240,183 reveals several key references that the patent examiner considered in determining the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention. The following are the most relevant of these references, with an assessment of the claims they might anticipate. The analysis focuses on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which requires that a single prior art reference disclose each and every element of a claimed invention.

Based on the file history, the following patents and patent applications were cited by the examiner as relevant prior art.

U.S. Patent 8,838,710 B2 (Gladwin, et al.)

Full Citation: US Patent 8,838,710 B2, "System and method for integrating self-directed and live agent interaction," assigned to eStara, Inc.
Publication Date: September 16, 2014 (Filed: November 2, 2007)
Brief Description: This patent describes a system for integrating automated (self-directed) and live agent help sessions over a data network. A user can interact with an "intelligent agent" for self-help, and the system can monitor these interactions. When necessary, the system can seamlessly integrate a live agent into the session to provide further assistance.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is relevant to the general concept of escalating a user interaction from one type of responder to another. However, it may not explicitly teach all the specific limitations of claim 1 of US 11,240,183. For instance, the '710 patent focuses on transitioning from an automated agent to a live agent within what appears to be a unified system. Claim 1 of the '183 patent details a more distinct process: a conversation with a first responder is terminated, and a second, different responder is identified based on the initial communication, with a separate communication protocol and address. The '710 patent's system for "integrating" a live agent may not align with the claimed steps of ending a conversation and initiating a new one with a different responder via a potentially different communication channel (like SMS). Therefore, while conceptually similar, it is unlikely to fully anticipate claim 1.

U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0282098 A1 (Agarwal, et al.)

Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2009/0282098 A1, "System and Method for Managing Electronic Communications with an Organization," assigned to Moxie Software, Inc.
Publication Date: November 12, 2009 (Filed: May 8, 2008)
Brief Description: This application discloses a system for managing electronic communications, such as chat sessions, between customers and an organization. It describes routing incoming communication requests to appropriate agents based on various criteria. The system can escalate or transfer sessions between agents.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is pertinent to the idea of routing and escalating communications. It describes selecting an agent and transferring a communication. However, similar to the '710 patent, the details of the process are critical. Claim 1 of the '183 patent specifies a sequence where an initial conversation with a first responder ends before a second is identified and contacted, potentially using a different protocol. The '098 application appears to focus more on transferring an ongoing session within a single, overarching communication platform. It may not disclose the distinct separation of the first and second responder interactions or the use of disparate communication protocols for the second responder as recited in claim 1. Thus, it is also unlikely to anticipate all elements of claim 1.

U.S. Patent 8,401,173 B2 (Paden, et al.)

Full Citation: US Patent 8,401,173 B2, "Method and apparatus for providing customer service," assigned to T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Publication Date: March 19, 2013 (Filed: September 29, 2010)
Brief Description: This patent details a system where a customer service request can be initiated on one platform (e.g., a web browser) and then fulfilled or continued on another, such as through a voice call or text message. It describes routing the customer to the right agent based on the nature of their inquiry.
Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '173 patent's teaching of multi-platform communication is highly relevant. It discloses initiating contact on a web browser and involving a second communication method. However, claim 1 of the '183 patent has a specific sequence of an "unauthenticated user" initiating a conversation, that conversation with a "first responder" ending, and then a "second responder" being identified and contacted. The '173 patent may not describe this exact sequence, particularly the defined termination of the first interaction before the second begins. It also may not specify that the first communication is an answer to a question posed by the first responder. The nuanced steps of claim 1, including the roles of the distinct first and second responders and the specific workflow, may not be fully present in this reference.

Conclusion

While the cited prior art references touch upon related concepts such as routing communication, escalating interactions, and using multiple communication platforms, none appear to explicitly disclose the entire, specific sequence of steps laid out in independent claim 1 of US Patent 11,240,183. The novelty of claim 1 seems to reside in the combination of:

An initial interaction with a first responder that is definitively terminated.
The identification of a separate, second responder based on that initial interaction.
The use of a potentially different communication protocol to engage the second responder.
The relay of the second responder's reply back to the original web browser, all while maintaining the anonymity of the second responder's contact details.

A finding of anticipation would require a single one of these references to teach every one of these steps in the claimed order. Based on this analysis, it is unlikely that any of the cited references, on their own, would anticipate claim 1 of US 11,240,183. An obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103, combining teachings from multiple references, would likely have been the more significant hurdle during patent prosecution.