FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-30-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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., the call resumption alert module which sends an alert to the user device to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call after the phone call has been placed on hold by the peer) 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).
Applicant argues that the prior art of Engelke does not teach or disclose the feature of sending an alert to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call after the phone call has been placed on hold by the peer. The feature ‘after the phone call has been placed on hold by the peer’ is not disclosed in claims 1-20. Further, the prior art of Engelke discloses:
‘…wherein the CTS system is configured to provide a call resumption alert module (i.e. call terminating feature) (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 6) to the user
such that the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device
(i.e. Engelke discloses: ‘…Another option may be for the relay server to go ahead and dial the relay user’s call back number and allow the user to either log in to the relay service via the user’s browser and answer the call or let the user’s telephone voicemail take a message…’ which reads on the claimed feature ‘the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device…’; col. 21, lines 56-60)
to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 45)…’.
In conclusion, the prior art teaches the claimed invention in claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 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.
Claims 1 and 10 disclose the claimed limitations: ‘…wherein the CTS system is configured to provide a call resumption alert module to the user such that the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call’. It is not clear from the newly added limitations: how the CTS system provides a call resumption alert module to the user in order for said module to alert the user device to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call after the phone call has been placed on hold by the peer. It is not clear in claims 1 and 10 what said module is and how it is provided to the user in order to alert the user device.
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1 and claims 11-20 depend on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 8,416,925 by Engelke et al, hereinafter Engelke.
Regarding claim 1, Engelke discloses
a captioned telephone service (“CTS”) system (Figures: 5, 6, 19, 20, 21), comprising:
a CTS server (Fig. 5, 54; i.e. relay server) for providing a transcription service (Fig. 5, 56; i.e. relay service) to a user (i.e. a first party or caller or relay user) during a phone call between the user and a peer (i.e. a second party or emergency service provider) (Figures: 5, 6, 19, 20, 21) (col. 12, lines 19-58; col. 20, lines 30-50);
a user device (i.e. standard computer or cell phone), which is constructed to be connected to the CTS server for the phone call between the user device and a peer device (col. 12, line 26 - col. 13, line 39);
a user application (i.e. browser web page) installed on the user device (col. 22, lines 7-23),
wherein the CTS server is connected to a call agent or an automatic speech recognition engine (col. 11, lines 13-24 and lines 31-36) for the phone call to provide the transcription service,
wherein the CTS system is configured to provide a call resumption alert module (i.e. call terminating feature) (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 6) to the user such that the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device
(i.e. Engelke discloses: ‘…Another option may be for the relay server to go ahead and dial the relay user’s call back number and allow the user to either log in to the relay service via the user’s browser and answer the call or let the user’s telephone voicemail take a message…’ which reads on the claimed feature ‘the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device…’; col. 21, lines 56-60)
to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call (col. 21, lines 39-44 and lines 56-59; col. 22, lines 46-53),
wherein the user application is configured for the user to enable or disable the call resumption alert module (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 45).
to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 45)…’.
Regarding claim 10, Engelke discloses
a captioned telephone service (“CTS”) system (Figures: 5, 6, 19, 20, 21), comprising:
a CTS server (Fig. 5, 54; i.e. relay server) for providing a transcription service (Fig. 5, 56; i.e. relay service) to a user (i.e. a first party or caller or relay user) during a phone call between the user and a peer (i.e. a second party or emergency service provider) (Figures: 5, 6, 19, 20, 21) (col. 12, lines 19-58; col. 20, lines 30-50);
a user device (i.e. standard computer or cell phone), which is constructed to be connected to the CTS server for the phone call between the user device and a peer device (col. 12, line 26 - col. 13, line 39);
a user application (i.e. browser web page) installed on the user device (col. 22, lines 7-23),
wherein the CTS server is connected to a call agent or an automatic speech recognition engine (col. 11, lines 13-24 and lines 31-36) for the phone call to provide the transcription service,
wherein the CTS system is configured to provide a call resumption alert module (i.e. call terminating feature) (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 6) to the user such that the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device
(i.e. Engelke discloses: ‘…Another option may be for the relay server to go ahead and dial the relay user’s call back number and allow the user to either log in to the relay service via the user’s browser and answer the call or let the user’s telephone voicemail take a message…’ which reads on the claimed feature ‘the call resumption alert module sends an alert to the user device…’; col. 21, lines 56-60)
to assist the user in re-engaging with the phone call (col. 21, lines 39-44 and lines 56-59; col. 22, lines 46-53),
wherein the user application is configured for the user to enable or disable the call resumption alert module (col. 21, line 45 – col. 22, line 23),
wherein the call resumption alert module comprises:
a call resumption checking module for checking whether the phone call resumed from the peer device (col. 21, lines 6-18; col. 21, line 51 – col. 22, line 6; col. 22, lines 46-61); and
an alert module for generating the alert upon receiving a call resumption message from the call resumption checking module (col. 21, lines 6-18; col. 21, line 51 – col. 22, line 6; col. 22, lines 46-61).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, wherein Engelke discloses the alert includes beeping from the user device, flashing of the user device's display or light, vibration of the user device, or haptic feedback from the user device (col. 21, lines 39-44 and lines 56-59; col. 22, lines 46-53).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Engelke discloses the call resumption alert module is configured to send the alert to a connected device (i.e. user’s telephone) which is connected to the user device, and wherein the call resumption alert module is configured to send the alert to the user device, the connected device, or both (col. 21, lines 39-44 and lines 56-60; col. 22, lines 46-53).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, wherein Engelke discloses the call resumption alert module is configured to detect a Dual Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF) signal originating from the peer device, and if the DTMF Signal is detected, the call resumption alert module is configured to send the alert to the user device (col. 21, lines 6-18; col. 21, line 51 – col. 22, line 6; col. 22, lines 46-61).
Regarding claim 11, the CTS system of claim 10, wherein Engelke discloses the call resumption checking module sends the call resumption message to the alert module when the user application receives any text which is transcribed from a voice of the peer device (col. 21, line 56 – col. 22, line 45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10 a.m. - 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/LISA HASHEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692