Response to Arguments
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 2/13/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 14-15, 27-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0250626 (Iwamura et al.) in view of US 2018/0263562 (Laplante-Levesque et al.).
As to claims 1, 27 and 28, Iwamura teaches a communication device, comprising: an antenna; a memory; and a processor, connected to the antenna and the memory respectively, wherein the processor is configured to control transceiving of the antenna by executing computer executable instructions stored in the memory, and the processor is configured to:
start a prohibit timer in response to a call being rejected in the user equipment (see paragraph 11, timer T302 activated when UE receives RRCConnectionReject in a call request); and
determine, according to a service type of the call triggering the start of the prohibit timer, an operation for a first service type of call during running of the prohibit timer (see paragraphs 5 and 11, the issuance of said call whose rejection activated timer T302 is based on the type of call being possible. Once said timer is activated calls of various types [emergency, non-emergency] are handled in based on policies associated with said timer)
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine, in response to that the service type of the call triggering the starting of the prohibit timer is a second service type, that the first service type of call is initiated during the running of the prohibit timer (see paragraphs 5 and 11, call that initiated timer T302 may be an emergency or non-emergency call type, subsequent call attempts during timer duration may be emergency or non-emergency call types);
wherein a service of the first service type comprises a radio interface resource (see paragraphs 5 and 11, calls made after timer initiated are calls requiring radio resources).
What is lacking from Iwamura is and the second service type comprises an artificial intelligence (Al) training-type service.
In analogous art, Laplante-Levesque teaches a Health monitoring APP on a smartphone that implements AI based training and which initiates calls (see Laplante-Levesque, paragraph 142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before he effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply this teaching to Iwamura, so as to provide the enhanced healthcare services to the user of the communication device.
As to claim 4, Iwamura further teaches maintaining, in response to that the service type of the call triggering the starting of the prohibit timer is the second service type, the running of the prohibit timer for the first service type of call (see paragraphs 5 and 11, if the rejected call that activated timer t302 is an emergency call type, then a non-emergency call type of call would be barred during the timer duration. Furthermore, even in the alternative scenario where a non-emergency call activates the timer and an emergency call is permitted during the timer period, said timer would still be active with respect to non-emergency calls).
As to claim 5, Iwamura further teaches wherein maintaining, in response to that the service type of the call triggering the starting of the prohibit timer is the second service type, the running of the prohibit timer for the first service type of call, comprises: determining, in response to that the service type of the call triggering the starting of the prohibit timer is the second service type, that the running of the prohibit timer is maintained for the first service type of call according to a first network configuration information or a first preset rule (see paragraphs 5 and 11, if the rejected call that activated timer t302 is an emergency call type, then a non-emergency call type of call would be barred during the timer duration. Furthermore, even in the alternative scenario where a non-emergency call activates the timer and an emergency call is permitted during the timer period, said timer would still be active with respect to non-emergency calls. All of these are at least based on preset rules).
As to claim 14, Iwamura further teaches wherein determining the operation for the first service type of call during the running of the prohibit timer is based on second network configuration information (see paragraphs 5 and 11, non-emergency types of calls handled differently than emergency calls during the running of timer T302).
As to claim 15, Iwamura further teaches receiving the first network configuration information transmitted by a system message or a radio resource control (RRC) connection release message (“first network configuration information” is an optional alternative to “first preset rule” which is addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above, from which claim 15 is dependent on).
As to claim 29, Iwamura further teaches wherein determining the operation for the first service type of call during the running of the prohibit timer is based on a second preset rule (see paragraphs 5 and 11, call that initiated timer T302 may be a non-emergency call type, subsequent call attempts during timer duration may be emergency or non-emergency call types).
As to claim 32, Iwamura in view of Laplante-Levesque further teaches wherein the radio interface resource required by the first service type is greater than a computing resource required by the first service type, and the computing resource required by the second service type is greater than the radio interface resource required by the second service type (Iwamura in view of Laplante-Levesque renders the first service type a regular voice call [radio source greater than the computing resource] and the second service type being an AI training based Health monitoring APP [computing resource greater than the radio resource]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641