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 .
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
As claim 1, the wherein clause the session controller: (1) terminates the session upon expiry of a timer unless receiving first in-call input signals from both mobile terminals; (2) terminates the session responsive to a second in-call input signal received from either mobile terminal; and (3) terminates the session and disassociates the profiles responsive to a third in-call input signal received from either mobile terminal” is vague and indefinite because they do not point out if termination of session will occur from 1, 2 and 3. For example, if the communication has been terminated by 1 then why it terminates by 2 and 3, if not termination by 1 then termination by 2 then why 3.
As claim 8, this claim is vague and indefinite because if the session has been terminated by at least one of one of termination of claim 1, then the session can not terminate by this request.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-10, 12-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] in view of Bautista [US 2011/0055340].
As claim 1, Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] discloses a digital telephony session instantiation and control system [Fig 2] comprising a plurality of mobile terminals [Fig 2, Ref 102] in operable communication with a server [Fig 2, Ref 120] executing a session controller across an IP network [Fig 1, Ref 104], each mobile terminal associated with a profile [Fig 2, Ref 230 includes profiles for each user 102] wherein the session controller is configured for matching non-disassociated user profiles [Fig 3 discloses Ref 320 for matching the first user profile and the second user profile wherein first is anonymous from second user, Par. 0005, 0009, 0068] and signaling to instantiate a digital telephony session between mobile terminals associated with the non-disassociated user profiles [Fig 3, Ref 325 for initiating a session between the first and second user], wherein the session controller: terminates the session upon expiry of a timer unless receiving first in-call input signals from both mobile terminals [Par. 0009-0010, 0074, 0091-0093 discloses terminating session upon expiry of timer unless both clients send keep alive message to server]; terminates the session responsive to a second in-call input signal received from either mobile terminal [Par. 0091-0094 discloses device can send disconnection message by said no or does not send anything]. However, Schumsker fails to disclose terminates the session and disassociates the profiles responsive to a third in-call input signal received from either mobile terminal. In the same field of endeavor, Bautista [US 2011/0055340] discloses terminates the session and disassociates the profiles responsive to a third in-call input signal received from either mobile terminal [Par. 0047 discloses terminates by at least one of user or invitee, then disassociated the user and invitee profile by server].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for terminating a session between the users and disassociated their profile as disclosed by Bautista into the teaching of Schumsker. The motivation would have been to provide a security.
As claim 2, Schumsker discloses the session controller is configured for resetting the timer responsive to the first in-call input signals [Par. 0009, 0016, 0091, 0094, 0140].
As claim 3, Schumsker discloses the session controller is configured for continuing the session responsive to the first in-call input signal until receiving a further session termination input signal from either mobile terminal [Par. 0009, 0016, 0091, 0094, 0140].
As claim 4, Schumsker discloses a session termination input is displayed on digital displays of both terminals responsive to the first in-call input signals [Par. 0010, 0017, 0092-0095, 0140].
As claim 5, Schumsker discloses termination of the session upon expiry of the timer comprises inhibition of the session [Par. 0009, 0016, 0091, 0093-0094, 0140 discloses prevent session to be continued without request from users].
As claim 9, Schumsker discloses the session controller terminates the session responsive to a fourth in-call input received from one of the first and second mobile terminals and does not disassociate the first and second profiles [Par. 0095].
As claim 10, Bautista [US 2011/0055340] discloses the session controller enables text communication functionality between the mobile terminals responsive to the first in-call input signals [Par. 0016-0017, 0039-0041].
As claim 12, Schumsker/Bautista discloses the session controller matches the profiles in accordance with meta data associated with the user profiles [Schumsker discloses Par. 0086 and Bautista discloses at Par. 0014, 0038].
As claim 13, Schumsker discloses the meta data comprises demographic meta data [Par. 0073, 0108 discloses location].
As claim 14, Bautista discloses when instantiating the session, each mobile terminal receives an incoming call on-screen notification comprising a subset of the metadata [Par. 0039].
As claim 15, Schumsker discloses after terminating the session, the session controller matches a further non-disassociated user profile and signals to instantiate a further digital telephony session between one of the mobile terminals and a further mobile terminal associated with the further non-disassociated user profile [Par. 0014, 0021, 0131].
As claim 16, Schumsker discloses each mobile terminal comprises a call controller having audio and video codecs for duplex audio and video communication [Par. 0065 and 0084].
As claim 19, Schumsker discloses the session controller converts spoken words to text, and terminates the session depending on the text [Par. 0126-0126 disclose converting voice into texts and determining what command from user, terminate if it is hang up command].
As claim 20, Schumsker discloses the session controller is responsive to incoming call current availability signals from mobile terminals and wherein, when matching user profiles, the session controller is configured for only matching user profiles associated with mobile terminals for which incoming call current availability signals have been received [Par. 0004, 0070, 0073, 0076, 0084].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] and Bautista [US 2011/0055340] as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nishimura [US 4706272].
As claim 6, Schumsker and Bautista fail to disclose what Nishimura [US 4706272] discloses inhibition of the section session comprises at least one of screen blurring and interruption [Fig 5, Ref S6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for providing an interrupting screen as disclosed by Nishimura into the teaching of Schumsker and Bautista. The motivation would have been to provide a security.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] and Bautista [US 2011/0055340] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du val [US 5818836].
As claim 7, Schumsker and Bautista fail to disclose what Du val [US 5818836] discloses the session controller is configured for recording a disassociation key between the profiles when disassociating the profiles [Fig 7, Ref 220 updates couple record].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for providing an interrupting screen as disclosed by Du val into the teaching of Schumsker and Bautista. The motivation would have been to bill the customer.
As claim 8, Du val [US 5818836] discloses the disassociation key is search indexed [Fig 7, Ref 220 for storing matchcode used as search key].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] and Bautista [US 2011/0055340] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rathod [US 20160014059].
As claim 11, Schumsker and Bautista fail to disclose what Rathod [US 20160014059] discloses the session controller inhibits text communication functionality between mobile terminals associated with disassociated profiles [Par. 0004-0005 discloses after terminating the session “disassociated the users”, the users do not allow to perform any communication such text with each other].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for providing an interrupting screen as disclosed by Rathod into the teaching of Schumsker and Bautista. The motivation would have been to provide a security.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] and Bautista [US 2011/0055340] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DiBona [US 2014/0099004].
As claim 17, Schumsker and Bautista fail to disclose what DiBona [US 2014/0099004] the session controller analyses at least one of audio and/or video data exchanged between the mobile terminals to automatically terminate the session [Par. 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system for analyzing at least one of audio and/or video data exchanged between the mobile terminals to automatically terminate the session as disclosed by DiBona into the teaching of Schumsker and Bautista. The motivation would have been to prevent bad language and images.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumsker [US 2019/0273726] and Bautista [US 2011/0055340] as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirata [US 2015/0215449].
As claim 18, Schumsker and Bautista fail to disclose what Hirata [US 2015/0215449] discloses the session controller analyses the audio to determine spoken word frequency and automatically terminates the session when spoken word frequency falls beneath a threshold [Par. 0110 discloses if sound less than voice frequency range then disconnecting the call].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply a method and system comprising the session controller analyses the audio to determine spoken word frequency and automatically terminates the session when spoken word frequency falls beneath a threshold as disclosed by Hirata into the teaching of Schumsker and Bautista. The motivation would have been to provide a security.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3159. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/STEVEN HIEU D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414