Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/287,768

SERVER APPARATUS, TELEPHONE CONNECTION METHOD AND TELEPHONE CONNECTION PROGRAM

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Examiner
POPE, KHARYE
Art Unit
2693
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
NEC Platforms Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
341 granted / 529 resolved
+2.5% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
561
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.4%
-36.6% vs TC avg
§103
63.5%
+23.5% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
10.0%
-30.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 529 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment This is in response to Applicants amendment filed 02/06/2026 which has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16 and 20 have been amended. Claims 5, 13 and 19 have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 8 and 9 being independent. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-18 and 20 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 Objections Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 is described as Previously Presented when it is in fact Currently Amended. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-3, 8-11, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisby et al (2009/0097631 A1) in view of Sansalone (2013/0303133 A1). As per Claims 1, 8 and 9, Gisby teaches a server apparatus (Figures 1 and 2 – Reference 30; Page 3, Paragraphs [0036] – [0038]) comprising: at least a processor (Figure 2 – Reference 250; Page 3, Paragraphs [0036] – [0038]); and a memory in circuit communication with the processor (Figure 4 – References 420, 430, 440 and 450; Page 3, Paragraphs [0036] – [0038]), wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory (Non-transitory program recording medium: Page 17, Paragraph [0160]). Gisby also teaches performing processing comprising: upon receiving an incoming call to a representative telephone number (User PBX extension/DID number: Page 5, Paragraph [0051]), multicasting a notification to a plurality of staff terminals previously registered in association with the representative telephone number of an occurrence of the incoming call (Page 5, Paragraph [0051]; Page 6, Paragraphs [0058] and [0062]). (Note: In paragraph [0051], Gisby describes the receipt of an incoming call to a terminal within an enterprise environment [e.g. incoming call to user PBX telephone extension – internal network]. Gisby indicates that in response to an incoming call a server may simultaneously ring a user’s office phone and other telephonic devices associated with the contacted party [i.e. plurality of staff terminals previously registered in association with the representative telephone number of an occurrence of the incoming call]) (Note: In paragraph [0052], Gisby describes an alert/indication/notification being provided to a called party and action being taken by the called party to indicated desired call disposition [answer call/ignore call/voicemail/etc.]. In paragraphs [0058] and [0062], Gisby describes modifiable user preferences that associates user office/PBX extension with one or more telephony devices which may be simultaneously or sequentially alerted in accordance with user preferences) Gisby does not teach wherein the notification comprises a plurality of choices of connection methods including a connection via an external telephone network and a connection via an internal telephone network; and upon receiving, from a first staff terminal among the plurality of staff terminals, an answering operation including a connection method from among the plurality of choices of connection methods, establishing a telephone connection to the first staff terminal via a telephone exchanger according to the received connection method. However, Sansalone teaches wherein the notification comprises a plurality of choices of connection methods including a connection via an external telephone network and a connection via an internal telephone network; and upon receiving, from a first staff terminal among the plurality of staff terminals, an answering operation including a connection method from among the plurality of choices of connection methods, establishing a telephone connection to the first staff terminal via a telephone exchanger according to the received connection method (Figure 2 – References 14, 18, 22, 26 and 28; Page 6, Paragraph [0068] – Page 7, Paragraph [0071]). (Note: In paragraph [0068], Sansalone describes the receipt of an incoming call from a calling party who has dialed a company number and a specific extension code [i.e. direct inward dialing – DID: internal network facilitated by an enterprise PBX] which an enterprise server uses as a key to look up the IP address or equivalent identifier of the identified targeted party/department. The IP address is associated with one or more numbers [e.g. direct number of a mobile device, company number with a DID extension, direct landline number, etc.]) (Note: In paragraph [0069], Sansalone describes the transmission of a status message to the phones associated with number dialed by the calling party and indicates that a host mobile phone receives the status message and proceeds to provide a notification displayed on the screen with associated text, animation, etc.) (Note: In paragraph [0070], Sansalone describes a dedicated multi-line application that provides a visual representation of phone lines [i.e. direct number of a mobile device, company number with a DID extension, direct landline number, etc.] Additionally, Gisby also describes the use of primary and secondary cellular and residential lines as shown in Figure 6A. The dedicated multi-line application shown in Figure 2 of Sansalone illustrates 6 lines which allows for 6 potential connection options. The Examiner is considering all employees of the enterprise to have mobile devices that feature the multi-line application) (Note: The use of company extensions and direct inward dialing indicate there is an internal enterprise network that is separate from all external networks such as a PSTN or the public Internet shown in Figure 1 of Sansalone. The Examiner is considering the association of each of the contact numbers associated with the linked contact profile taught in both Gisby and Sansalone as be assigned to one of the lines of the multi-line application shown in Figure 2 of Sansalone) (Note: In paragraph [0066], Sansalone describes the operation of the multi-line application interface. Sansalone indicates the display screen may include a keypad or a touchscreen. Other embodiments may include and IVR or rely on voice recognition. In paragraph [0071], Sansalone describes the selection of line 1 and the entering of a talk command which the Examiner is considering as reading on an answering operation including a connection method from among the plurality of choices of connection methods, establishing a telephone connection to the first staff terminal via a telephone exchanger according to the received connection method) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium taught by Gisby with the apparatus taught by Sansalone to ensure that in areas or times of low data bandwidth it is possible to support multi-line capability and/or PBX capabilities using a cellular phone without having to excessively rely on cellular data for the transmission of voice information or signals across multiple lines. As per Claims 2, 10 and 16, the combination of Gisby and Sansalone teaches wherein the processor multicasts the notification via a network different from a telephone network as described in Claim 1. (Note: In paragraph [0032], Gisby describes the use of a local area network [i.e. data network]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium taught by Gisby with the apparatus taught by Sansalone to ensure that in areas or times of low data bandwidth it is possible to support multi-line capability and/or PBX capabilities using a cellular phone without having to excessively rely on cellular data for the transmission of voice information or signals across multiple lines. As per Claims 3, 11 and 17, the combination of Gisby and Sansalone teaches wherein, upon receiving a forwarding operation from the first staff terminal to a second staff terminal among the plurality of staff terminals, the processor calls a telephone number of the second staff terminal via the telephone exchanger to establish a telephone connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium taught by Gisby with the apparatus taught by Sansalone to ensure that in areas or times of low data bandwidth it is possible to support multi-line capability and/or PBX capabilities using a cellular phone without having to excessively rely on cellular data for the transmission of voice information or signals across multiple lines. Claim(s) 4, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisby et al (2009/0097631 A1) in view of Sansalone (2013/0303133 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 8 and 9 above, and further in view of HILL et al (2022/0006697 A1). As per Claims 4, 12 and 18, the combination of Gisby and Sansalone teaches the server apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium according to Claims 1, 8 and 9; but does not teach wherein upon receiving a forwarding confirmation operation from the first staff terminal to a second staff terminal, the processor presents a plurality of choices of connection methods on the second staff terminal. However, Hill teaches wherein upon receiving a forwarding confirmation operation from the first staff terminal to a second staff terminal, the processor presents a plurality of choices of connection methods on the second staff terminal (Page 13, Paragraph [0092]). (Note: In paragraph [0092], Hill describes the use of a drop-down menu that is used by a user to select a network path from a plurality of network paths. Combining this with the plurality of networks described by the combination of Gisby and Sansalone provides a functionality where a drop-down menu may be used to select a preferred network to utilize for establishing a call connection) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium taught by Gisby and Sansalone with the apparatus taught by Hill to optimize the routing of a communication based on a particular variable [stability, cost, signal strength/quality] seeking to be maximized and the location of the party to whom the call is being forwarded. Claim(s) 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gisby et al (2009/0097631 A1) in view of Sansalone (2013/0303133 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 8 and 9 above, and further in view of Baiyor et al (6,307,929 B1). As per Claim 6, 14 and 20, the combination of Gisby and Sansalone teaches the server apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium according to Claims 1, 8 and 9; but does not teach wherein the processor multicasts a notification to a plurality of staff terminals that a response to the incoming call to the representative telephone number has been performed or that a telephone connection to the representative telephone number has been abandoned. However, Baiyor teaches wherein the processor multicasts a notification to a plurality of staff terminals that a response to the incoming call to the representative telephone number has been performed or that a telephone connection to the representative telephone number has been abandoned (Column 5, Line 58 – Column 6, Line 24; Column 7, Line 4-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus, method and non-transitory program recording medium taught by Gisby and Sansalone with the apparatus taught by Baiyor to enable a call to be automatically routed to a different department or to voicemail which prevents the caller from hearing a busy signal or a disconnect tone thereby retaining the caller in the enterprise’s ecosystem. As per Claims 7 and 15, the combination of Gisby, Sansalone and Baiyor teaches wherein upon receiving a return call operation from the first staff terminal, the processor calls a terminal which had provided the incoming call to the representative telephone number to establish a telephone connection (Baiyor: Figure 5 – Reference 545; Column 15, Lines 46-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and non-transitory program recording medium taught by Gisby and Sansalone with the apparatus taught by Baiyor to enable a call to be automatically routed to a different department or to voicemail which prevents the caller from hearing a busy signal or a disconnect tone thereby retaining the caller in the enterprise’s ecosystem. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. LIU (2022/0294891 A1), Gisby et al (2010/0046731 A1), O’Neil et al (8,107,957 B1), Heredia et al (2014/0335823 A1), Verrall et al (2014/0006589 A1), Mahler et al (2012/0224513 A1), Harris et al (2008/0200158 A1), Mateer et al (8,600,417 B1), Chavez et al (2005/0013421 A1), KATO (2009/0005024 A1) and Cai (8,452,315 B1). Each of these describes systems and methods for forwarding of communications within a telecommunications network. 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 KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM. 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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. KHARYE POPE Primary Examiner Art Unit 2693 /KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 20, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 30, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 17, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 06, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604256
Unified Access Control for a Cellular Network
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603831
Bit Index Explicit Replication Fast Reroute
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598667
COMMUNICATION METHOD AND COMMUNICATION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592850
EQUALIZATION DOMAIN SELECTION AT A WIRELESS DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587400
SYSTEM AND METHOD FACILITATING ENHANCED SPATIAL CONFERENCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+22.1%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 529 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month