DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claim 138 recites the limitation "community administrator" in line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims 139 through 144 are rejected for the same reason.
3. Regarding claim 139, the phrase "but not limited to" renders the claims indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "but not limited to"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 126, 129-131, 133 and 134 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkkainen et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,134,144 (hereinafter Karkkainen) combined with Nguyen, U.S. Patent No. 11,277,520 (hereinafter Nguyen) and Streuter et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0402046 (hereinafter Streuter).
Regarding claim 126, Karkkainen discloses a method comprising:
placing a call (from column 16, see Alice has inputted to her user apparatus UA1 that she wants to call to Bob) request from a caller device (from column 16, see UA1) to a callee device (from column 16, see UA2);
transmitting, from the caller device to the callee device, a live video feed of the caller for use by the callee in determining whether to accept the call request (from column 17, see displays the video stream to Bob);
allowing the callee to accept (from Figure 3, see call accepted) or reject (from Figure 3, see call rejected) said call request based on said transmitted video feed (from column 13, see sending a video stream).
Still on the issue of claim 126, Karkkainen does not teach the method comprising:
associating, for each mobile device, a device profile that includes:
a unique device identification token;
a unique user identifier; and
iii) a unique call tag in the form of a QR code, bar code, or RFID code encoding a network-resolvable link referencing said device profile, the link being dynamically resolvable by the network server to initiate a real-time communication session between a caller device and a callee device; and
using said call tag to place the call request from a caller device to a callee device by resolving said network-resolvable link through said network server.
All the same, Nguyen discloses:
associating, for each mobile device (from Figure 1A, see Cell phone), a device profile that includes:
a unique user identifier (from column 7, see For example, the communication token can include a link to an IP address, to an email address, to a social media link such as a facebook page, to an Internet calling account such as a Viber, Skype, or messenger ID); and
iii) a unique call tag in the form of a QR code (from abstract, see QR codes), bar code, or RFID code encoding a network-resolvable link referencing said device profile, the link being dynamically (from column 5, see the receiver communication device can have a dynamic IP address) resolvable by the network server to initiate a real-time communication session between a caller device and a callee device; and
using said call tag to place the call request from a caller device (from Figure 42, see 4230) to a callee device (from Figure 42, see 4210) by resolving said network-resolvable link (from Figure 42, see 4260) through said network server (from Figure 42, see 4220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Karkkainen with the device profile of Nguyen. This modification would have improved security by providing a high degree of flexibility and privacy as suggested by Nguyen.
Further regarding claim 126, the combination of Karkkainen and Nguyen does not clearly teach that the device profile includes a unique device identification token. All the same, Streuter discloses that the device profile includes a unique device identification token (from Figure 1, see Unique onetime identification token). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Karkkainen and Nguyen wherein the device profile includes a unique device identification token as taught by Streuter. This modification would have improved security by defeating an account access attempt by an unauthorized actor as suggested by Streuter.
Regarding claim 129, the combination of Karkkainen and Nguyen discloses that said call tag is encoded with a network-resolvable link referencing a telephone phone number or VoIP endpoint for placing a voice call over a cellular or data network (from column 14 of Nguyen, see the server can send calling information, such as the telephone number of the receiver device, to the call communication device so that the caller communication device can call the receiver device through the cellular network).
Regarding claim 130, the combination of Karkkainen and Nguyen discloses that said device profile further contains a user-specified secret code, and wherein the call request proceeds only if a user of the caller device enters a matching secret code (from column 17 of Nguyen, see A password can provide an extra security to remove unauthorized callers).
Regarding claim 131, the combination of Karkkianen and Nguyen discloses informing the caller device of alternate contact information associated with the callee when the call request is not answered (from column 18 of Nguyen, see a token can include a telephone number, with instructions to provide the telephone number to the caller if the receiver cannot be connected. The token can be used as an emergency token, to ensure that the caller can contact the receiver, even if the VOIP network is not available, or if the receiver is not connected to the Internet).
Regarding claim 133, the combination of Karkkainen and Nguyen discloses associating, by the network server, a user’s call tag with multiple mobile devices to form a call group for handling incoming call requests initiated using said call tag, wherein the call server is configured to:
broadcast the call request to all member devices of said call group and allow only one device to answer; or
broadcast the call request to all member devices and allow multiple devices to join a conference call; or
sequentially notify the member devices until one device answers or all devices have been notified (from column 20 of Nguyen, see For example, in a Bed and Breakfast business, a contact information can be posted, which is linked to the owner and his partners. Thus, when a customer or a prospective customer calls the contact information, the phones for the owners and his partners can ring. If the owner is free, he can pick up the phone to answer, and the phones can stop ringing in his partners. If the owner is busy, one of his partners can pick up the phone to answer, and the phones can stop ringing in other persons. Similarly, in other businesses such as in a restaurant, the contact information for reservation or inquiry can ring on multiple waiters and cashiers to ensure of no miss calls).
Regarding claim 134, the combination of Karkkianen and Nguyen discloses allowing a member device of said call group to forward said call request to another member device of the same call group (from column 19 of Nguyen, see For example, one or more first recipients can be ringed first. If none of the first recipients pick up the phone after a few rings, then one or more second recipients can be ringed).
6. Claim 132 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkkianen and Nguyen and Streuter in view of further view of Strunk et al, U.S. Patent No. 2014/0270110 (hereinafter Strunk).
Regarding claim 132, the combination of references does not teach prompting the caller device to record and transmit a text or voice message when the callee does not respond to the call request. All the same, Strunk discloses prompting the caller device to record and transmit a text or voice message when the callee does not respond to the call request (from paragraph 0067, see the caller may thus record a voicemail or draft a text message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with prompting the caller device to record and transmit a text or voice message when the callee does not respond to the call request as taught by Strunk. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing the business to make the reservation for the caller and possibly send back a response as suggested by Strunk.
7. Claims 126 and 127 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0027504 (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Nguyen and Streuter.
Regarding claim 126, Zhang discloses a method comprising the steps:
placing a call request from a caller device to a callee device (from abstract, see a request from a first endpoint is identified for a second endpoint to join a video communication session);
transmitting, from the caller device to the callee device, a live video feed of the caller for use by the callee in determining whether to accept the call request (from abstract, see Particular video data captured at the first endpoint is displayed at the second endpoint);
allowing the callee device to accept or reject said call request based on said transmitted video feed (from paragraph 0010, see a response can be identified (received at the second endpoint) indicating whether a video communication session with the video caller is desired).
Still on the issue of claim 126, Zhang does not teach the method comprising:
associating, for each mobile device, a device profile that includes:
a unique device identification token;
a unique user identifier; and
iii) a unique call tag in the form of a QR code, bar code, or RFID code encoding a network-resolvable link referencing said device profile, the link being dynamically resolvable by the network server to initiate a real-time communication session between a caller device and a callee device; and
using said call tag to place the call request from a caller device to a callee device by resolving said network-resolvable link through said network server.
All the same, Nguyen discloses:
associating, for each mobile device (from Figure 1A, see Cell phone), a device profile (from Figure 11A, see profile) that includes:
a unique user identifier (from column 7, see For example, the communication token can include a link to an IP address, to an email address, to a social media link such as a facebook page, to an Internet calling account such as a Viber, Skype, or messenger ID); and
iii) a unique call tag in the form of a QR code (from Figure 1A, see 111), bar code, or RFID code encoding a network-resolvable link referencing said device profile, the link being dynamically (from column 5, see the receiver communication device can have a dynamic IP address) resolvable by the network server to initiate a real-time communication session between a caller device and a callee device; and
using said call tag to place the call request from a caller device (from Figure 42, see 4230) to a callee device (from Figure 42, see 4210) by resolving said network-resolvable link (from Figure 42, see 4260) through said network server (from Figure 42, see 4220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang with the device profile of Nguyen. This modification would have improved security by providing a high degree of flexibility and privacy as suggested by Nguyen.
Further regarding claim 126, the combination of Zhang and Nguyen does not clearly teach that the device profile includes a unique device identification token. All the same, Streuter discloses that the device profile includes a unique device identification token (from Figure 1, see Unique onetime identification token). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Zhang and Nguyen wherein the device profile includes a unique device identification token as taught by Streuter. This modification would have improved security by defeating an account access attempt by an unauthorized actor as suggested by Streuter.
Regarding claim 127, Zhang discloses allowing a user of a mobile device to block subsequent call requests from another user as a result of examination of said transmitted video feed (from paragraph 0049, see For instance, a user, in connection with denying or accepting a video call from a particular terminal device or user associated with the terminal (e.g., through an associated user account), can elect to blacklist or whitelist the caller so as to automatically deny or block future calls in the case of a blacklist or automatically connect to futures calls from callers included in a whitelist. In some instances, data can be captured from the preview video data for use in identifying, from future received video data, that a blacklisted (or whitelisted) caller is attempting to contact the terminal or user associated with the blacklist).
8. Claim 128 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang combined with Nguyen and Streuter in further view of Sharpe, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0105373 (hereinafter Sharpe).
Regarding claim 128, the combination of references does not teach further prohibiting a mobile device from placing a call request when a user of said mobile device and/or the device itself has been blocked by a threshold number of other users. All the same, Sharpe discloses further prohibiting a mobile device from placing a call request when a user of said mobile device and/or the device itself has been blocked by a threshold number of other users (from paragraph 0032, see The spam score for phone numbers, caller identification information, and related information that meet a minimum threshold (which may be user defined) are added to the community blacklist which is then transmitted to all connected devices (e.g., mobile, landline, network) on, for example, a real time, periodic, and/or as needed basis. An operation (e.g., call blocking, call forwarding, etc.) may then be applied to, for example, some or all incoming calls and/or text messages associated with community-blacklisted numbers/callers). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify further modify the combination of references with prohibiting a mobile device from placing a call request when a user of said mobile device and/or the device itself has been blocked by a threshold number of other users as taught by Sharpe. This modification would have improved the system’s reliability preventing wrongfully adding non-spam/wanted phone numbers to the community blacklist as suggested by Sharpe.
9. Claim 135 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkkianen combined with Nguyen and Streuter in view of Richardson et al, U.S. Patent No. 5,745,558 (hereinafter Richardson).
Regarding claim 135, the combination of base references does not teach allowing a member device of said call group, while engaged in an active communication session with a caller, to invite one or more other member devices of said call group to join the session, thereby forming a conference call. All the same, Richardson discloses allowing a member device of said call group, while engaged in an active communication session with a caller, to invite one or more other member devices of said call group to join the session, thereby forming a conference call (from column 1, see To establish the connection or “three-way call”, the recipient receives a telephone call from the originator and subsequently places the telephone call on hold by depressing and releasing the switch hook on his telephone. Upon receiving a dial tone, the recipient dials the telephone number of the third party, and establishes a connection with the third party. Then, the recipient depresses and releases his switch hook a second time to connect all three individuals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of references with allowing a member device of said call group, while engaged in an active communication session with a caller, to invite one or more other member devices of said call group to join the session, thereby forming a conference call as taught by Richardson. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by allowing a member to seek help.
10. Claims 136 and 137 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkkianen combined with Nguyen and Streuter in view of Gutierrez et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0329443 (hereinafter Gutierrez).
Regarding claim 136, although Nguyen teaches said call tag is associated with a plurality of said devices (from column 20, see in a Bed and Breakfast business, a contact information can be posted, which is linked to the owner and his partners. Thus, when a customer or a prospective customer calls the contact information, the phones for the owners and his partners can ring), the combination of references does not teach each of which is alternatively or additionally associated with a unique extension code for internal call routing, and wherein the call request is routed to one of said devices based on the entered extension code. All the same, Gutierrez discloses that each of which is alternatively or additionally associated with a unique extension code for internal call routing, and wherein the call request is routed to one of said devices based on the entered extension code (from abstract, see a method and system for providing mobile based services for hotel PBX having an external number assigned which includes the steps of providing each hotel room which provides the mobile based service with at least one mobile station comprising a SIM, each SIM storing a different IMSI number; assigning a VPN to the hotel; assigning each IMSI number of each mobile station to a different MSISDN that can only be used internally in the MNO network and that cannot be dialed from other telephones; and assigning each MSISDN to a different extension number that can be used as a room extension number and that corresponds to the VPN number of the VPN of the hotel. The invention is advantageous in that it solves problems of prior art systems by making use of a mobile PBX, so that every hotel will have its own VPN numbers that can be used as room extensions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of base references wherein each of which is alternatively or additionally associated with a unique extension code for internal call routing, and wherein the call request is routed to one of said devices based on the entered extension code. This modification would have improved the system’s convenience by reducing overhead as suggested by Gutierrez.
Regarding claim 137, the combination of base references as modified by Gutierrez discloses allowing a registered user to initiate a call request to another user of said system by entering or selecting said extension code through a user interface of the call application (from paragraph 0040 of Gutierrez, see extension number).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 138-144 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant argues that the identifier of Nguyen is static. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Because Nguyen discloses that the receiver communication device can have a dynamic IP address (see column 5), Nguyen discloses a network-resolvable, server-managed link used for real-time call initiation.
Applicant argues that Sharpe’s centralized spam database differs fundamentally from distributed user-driven blocking tied to individual device profiles. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Because Sharpe discloses community-blacklisted numbers/callers, Sharpe discloses prohibiting a mobile device from placing a call request when a user of said mobile device and/or the device itself has been blocked by a threshold number of other users. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., behavioral blocking and threshold control mechanisms integrated with call tag identification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the Nguyen reference covers call routing in a Bed and Breakfast business environment (see column 20). While Nguyen does not discuss the use of extensions, Gutierrez provides this teaching in a hotel setting and explains that such a feature would reduce overhead.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Olisa Anwah whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 570-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
November 5, 2025
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2655