DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Jan. 07, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 4, 11, 18 and 25 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 16-17 and 23-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Shaffer et al. (2005/0198096).
Regarding claim 1, Shaffer discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a second device, a request for a voice call session with a first device (see fig.2, elements 48/51b, 62/60, paragraphs [0012], [0041] and its description); sending, to the first device, a refusal of the request for the voice call session, wherein the refusal comprises an indication that a called party prefers receiving a text message instead of a voicemail (see abstract, fig.2, element 48/51b, 42, 62/60, paragraphs [0002], [0008], [0016], [0033], [0035], [0039], [0051] and its description); and receiving, after sending the indication, a first text message from the first device (see paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Shaffer further discloses wherein the second device comprises a server (see abstract, fig.2, element 42 paragraphs [0012], [0031] and its description)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 5-7, 12-14, 19-21 and 26-33, are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (2005/0198096) in view of Murray. (2009/0147,778).
Regarding claim 3, Shaffer discloses all the subject matter above, except for a determination that a period of time has elapsed. However, Murray discloses a system and method in a radio telecommunications network for interactively providing a calling party with a choice of call handling options including wherein the sending the refusal of the request for the voice call session is based on a determination that a period of time has elapsed since receiving the request for the voice call session (see fig.1, element 22, col.3, line 52 and its description). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use Murray’s the determination that a period of time has elapsed in order to improve the use of telecommunication devices.
Regarding claim 5, Murray further discloses sending, based on a determination that an acknowledgement that the first text message has not been received, the voice call session to voicemail (see abstract, fig.1, element SCP 18, col.3, line 29, col.4, line 19, and its description).
Regarding claim 6, Murray further comprising generating a user interface (it is inherent in mobile devices); and receiving, via the user interface, the refusal of the
request for the voice call session (it is inherent in mobile devices).
Regarding claim 7, Murray further discloses wherein the second device comprises a called terminal (see fig.1, element 13, col.3, line 52 and its description).
Regarding claim 29, Murray further discloses wherein the refusal further comprises a request for a text message (see abstract, fig. 1, elements 15/88, 11, col. 1,
line 47, col.3, line 11 and its description).
Regarding claim 30, Murray further discloses wherein the refusal causes the first device to initiate a messaging application (see abstract, fig.1, elements 15/88, 11 and its description).
Regarding claims 8-10, 12-17, 19-24, 26-28 and 29-30 recite limitations substantially similar to the claims 1-3, 5-7 and 29-30. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, 16 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CongVan Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-7871. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Th.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
125
125
media_image1.png
Greyscale
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
/CONGVAN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights