DETAILED ACTION 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. Clarity of the Record - Claim Interpretation 35 USC § 101 Claim 13 recites “A computer program product” and has been evaluated for program per se/software per se concerns. Looking at the current disclosure , paragraph 41 supports the disclosure of the “CPP” as well as the disclosure of the computer readable medium being clearly established as a non-transitory element. After review of the disclosure, claim 13 and those dependent to claim 13 are interpreted as directed towards a statutory category and the claims are thus not rejected under USC 101. Claim 18 recites “one or more computer readable storage media” . This limitation has been evaluated for signal per se concerns. The disclosure at Paragraph 41 clearly defines the limitation as excluding transitory signals. As such claim 18 and those dependent to claim 13 are interpreted as directed towards a statutory category and the claims are thus not rejected under USC 101. Clarity of the Record - Claim Interpretation Claims 1, 13 and 18 as intendents establish the limitations “first IoT device” and “second IoT device”. There limitations were evaluated and interpreted as not invoking a 112(f) interpretation. While ‘device’ can be construed as generic terminology equating to ‘means’ the limitations as interpreted as not being directly coupled to a ‘function’ and as such the limitations do not meet the requirements to trigger a means plus function interpretation. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non- structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claim 14 ‘a data processing system’ Disclosure of structural support not found, see below In claim 14 ‘a remote data processing system’ Disclosure of structural support not found, see below In claim 15 ‘a server data processing system’ Disclosure of structural support not found, see below In claim 15 ‘a remote data processing system’ Disclosure of structural support not found, see below Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Re claims 1, 13 and 20 as the independent claims The term “ trust ” in claim s 1, 13 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite (Additional dependent claims also recite this limitation but the term is initially established in the independent claims) . The term “ trust ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention . The term “trust” is used within the claims with regards to selecting a “trusted contact” from among a “list of trusted contacts”. The primary point of concern is the generation of the “list of trusted contacts”, while the selection process involves using a selection criterion of a ‘trust factor’ and a ‘probability factor’ that the call will be answer. The incorporation and use of the relative term ‘trust’ however starts in the generation of the “trusted contact list”. The disclosure is most specific in Paragraphs 26-29, but for sake of clarity the entire scope of the disclosure has been considered including but not limited to additional paragraphs 68-70, 82 and 94-99 in attempts to find adequate support for this term. Ultimately, the disclosure fails however to adequately define the scope of the term “trusted” as it is to be considered for patentability. Paragraph 29 provides the most robust attempt to discuss the concept of the “trusted contact list”, however the disclosure relies on the relative term to attempt to define the relative limitation. Per paragraph 29, the trusted list is established based on the contacts that “appear to be trusted”. Therefore, the provided definition is such that contacts that are trusted are those that appear to be trusted, failing to clearly establish a patentable scope for the term “trust” in the context of the contact list. Further, the scope of ‘appear to be’ is also ambiguous. The disclosure discusses collecting data and information from various sources (see again primarily par 29) , but there is never an explanation as to how that data is used to determine ‘trust’ outside of being based on the appearance of trust, which does not establish a clear definition of the scope of the claimed limitations. The act of ‘selecting a trusted contact’ merely describes how to determine which contact to pull from the trusted listed, and does not define ‘trust’ for how the list would be initially created. The scope further provides a ‘trust factor’ is used in the selection from the list, not in the creation of the list, but again the scope of how ‘trust’ is factored is not clearly defined. Given this review of the disclosure, the patentable scope of the term “trusted”, specifically “list of trusted contacts” and the associated selection of “trusted contacts” is not clearly defined, the scope of the term ‘trusted’ remains relative, and the therefore the patentable scope of the claimed limitations specifically pointed to are indefinite. Claim limitation s “a data processing system” and “a remote data processing system” in claim 14 and “a server data processing system” and “a remote data processing system” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Each of the noted limitations is drawn to a system, which MPEP 2181 (I)(A) indicates as a generic placeholder for the term “means”. Additionally, each limitation is modified by the functional language of “data processing”. In review the disclosure, the Examiner cannot find disclosure directed towards the specific structural implementation of the different data processing means that are claimed. It is noted that terms such as “server” and “remote” are used, these serve to discuss a location of the system, not to establish structure for the actual “means for data processing”. There is additionally no clear disclosure of a processor/computer with a disclosed algorithm to perform the claimed processing functions for each of the noted limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitations “a data processing system” and “a remote data processing system” in claim 14 and “a server data processing system” and “a remote data processing system” in claim 15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Each of these limitations has been further found to be indefinite for lacking sufficient disclosure of the structure to perform these claimed limitations. Per MPEP 2163.03 (VI) and MPEP 2181 (IV) these limitations are also interpreted to lack written description support, as per MPEP 2163.03 “ because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention ”. Note these limitations are not subject to an enablement rejection in light of the Wands factors, and the ability of one of skill in the art would allow for the achievement of the design without undue experimentation. Specifically and not limited to, one of skill in the art, per MPEP 2164.01(a) would not require undue experimentation when considering factors such as (B) The nature of the invention (information processing using computers) ; (C) The state of the prior art (digital call connection and communication) ; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill (computer design is shown in the scope of the current disclosure) ; and/or (G) The existence of working examples (computer design is shown in the scope of the current disclosure) in the determination of the enablement of these limitations. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1- 13 and 16- 20 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. [note claims 14-15 are rejected further under USC 112(a), and thus would only be allowable if rewritten to address all pending grounds for rejection] The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 1, 13 and 18, the prior art fails to disclose listing and selection of contacts that meet a specificity from amongst other contacts and the continued processing to reroute calls to these selected contacts when an initial call connection fails . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior arts are relevant to the scope of the claimed invention but fail to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above claims: Hillier (US 20130210393) Klein (US 20050201362) Fiore (US 20180365751) Skinner (US 8036362) Nah (US 7764979) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1848 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Hannah S. Wang can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9018 . 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. /MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631