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, see pp. 10-14 of the response, filed January 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 under §§ 102, 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has three arguments and has not amended its claims to clarify the claimed subject matter. First, Applicant alleges that Rathore does not teach every element of claim 1 because “Rathore requires the first call already be established before any interaction with the third UE occurs.” Second, Applicant alleges that initiating a second call with a third UE is not a request to add the third UE to the first call. Third, Applicant disputes that “in progress” can be interpreted as “while or after establishing the second call.”
Applicant first alleges that Rathore “requires the first call already be established before any interaction with the third UE occurs.” Remarks at 11. While this position, if true, would resolve the issue, Applicant does not cite the record or provide a quotation from Rathore.
After further review, Rathore does not appear to impose such a harsh requirement, and Applicant has not amended its claims to unambiguously delineate from the teachings of Rathore. For example, the publications first claim does (Claim 1) not require that the first call be “established” in the past tense. (Claim 1 of Rathore, “establishing a second call with a third UE, while the first call is in an active state”). The term “active state” does not require that the call is established in the past tense. For example, in [0063], Rathore states that, with regard to merging, “the UE 101 . . . starts to process a reception stream (or packet) when a signal related to the CS call . . . is in an active state.” This process includes “extracting a wideband sample . . . down-sampling . . . generating a stream.” That is, the “establishing” of a call—as opposed to maintaining an already “established” call.
The pending claims do not define what it means to be “established,” as opposed to merely “establishing,” in technical terms. The Specification of the present application provides at least one distinction between these terms in that establishing may mean “while the call is still ‘ringing’ at user-A’s UE”. Specification at [0081]. These elements are not recited in the claim.
With regard to Applicant’s second allegation, Applicant states that “initiating a second call with a third UE is not a request to add the third UE to the first call.” Remarks at 11. These elements are not in the claim. The claims do not recite an explicit request. Instead, claim 1, recites, “receiving input requesting . . . .” Further, the input is not further defined in the claims. For example, the recited input is not required to be “from the first user” as indicated in the Specification in [0087], [0091], [0099], [0106]. Rathore discloses “receiving input requesting” in [0055], where “The mixing module 203 can be configured to collect at least one input pertaining to at least one action to be triggered” and [0059].
Third, Applicant alleges that “in progress” cannot be interpreted as “while or after establishing the second call.” To the extent that [0060] is ambiguous, [0063] provides more clarity. For example, “if the selection is merging of the first call and the second call,” Rathore discusses, “holding signaling relating to the CS call and retrieving the VoIP-PS call.”
Later on, Rathore further explicitly discusses “a scenario in which the UE 101 has established communication with at least two communication devices.” ([0065]). The term “established” is not used in relation to FIG. 3 and its associated paragraphs [0059-64].
For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1-5, 15-19, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2017/0085597 (hereinafter “Rathore”).
Regarding claim 1, Rathore teaches: A method for wireless communication by a first user equipment (UE), comprising: initiating a mobile call associated with a second UE ([0059] Referring to FIG. 3, [t]he UE 101 establishes in operation 302 a first call with a second UE 102.a, wherein the first call is in a first domain.); receiving input ([0055] The mixing module 203 can be configured to collect at least one input pertaining to at least one action to be triggered, with respect to the first call and a second call the UE 101 has established with the second UE 102.a and the third UE 102.b, respectively.) requesting to add a third UE to the mobile call ([0059] In operation 304 while the first call is in progress, the UE 101 establishes a second call with a third UE 102.b. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the second call is initiated by the UE 101, while the first call is in progress.) prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE (Rathore defines “in progress” to mean “while or after establishing the second call (while the first call is still in progress)” in [0060]); and taking one or more actions to establish a mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the received input prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE ([0061] In various embodiments of the present disclosure, in operation 308 a user determines the actions that can be performed are holding one call, merging the first and second calls, or ending one call. Based on the selection made, of the available options, the UE triggers corresponding procedures.).
Regarding claim 2, Rathore teaches: further comprising receiving one or more periodic ringing signals based on the initiated mobile call (Ringing is inherent in establishing a call according to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia Non-Patent Literature).
Regarding claim 3, Rathore teaches: wherein at least receiving the input to add the third UE occurs during reception of the one or more periodic ringing signals ([0058] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, an operation of selecting an operation to be triggered by a UE is called an in-call action, wherein the in-call action is triggered by the UE 101 when at least one call is in progress with at least one communication device 102.a and 102.b.).
Regarding claim 4, Rathore teaches: wherein the one or more periodic ringing signals are associated with the second UE (Ringing is inherent in all calls according to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia Non-Patent Literature).
Regarding claim 5, Rathore teaches: wherein taking the one or more actions comprises sending a cancelation message for the mobile call associated with the second UE ([0048] In various embodiments of the present disclosure, the actions supported by the UE 101 are merging of the first call and the second call, hold one call till the other call is finished/terminated/put on hold, or ending one call while only the other call is being selected to be handled by the UE 101.).
Regarding claim 15, Rathore teaches: A first user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories comprising executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the first UE to: initiate a mobile call associated with a second UE ([0059] Referring to FIG. 3, [t]he UE 101 establishes in operation 302 a first call with a second UE 102.a, wherein the first call is in a first domain.); receiving input ([0055] The mixing module 203 can be configured to collect at least one input pertaining to at least one action to be triggered, with respect to the first call and a second call the UE 101 has established with the second UE 102.a and the third UE 102.b, respectively.) request to add a third UE to the mobile call ([0059] In operation 304 while the first call is in progress, the UE 101 establishes a second call with a third UE 102.b. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the second call is initiated by the UE 101, while the first call is in progress.) prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE (Rathore defines “in progress” to mean “while or after establishing the second call (while the first call is still in progress)” in [0060]); and take one or more actions to establish a mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the received input prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE ([0061] In various embodiments of the present disclosure, in operation 308 a user determines the actions that can be performed are holding one call, merging the first and second calls, or ending one call. Based on the selection made, of the available options, the UE triggers corresponding procedures.).
Regarding claim 16, Rathore teaches: receive one or more periodic ringing signals based on the initiated mobile call (Ringing is inherent in establishing a call according to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia Non-Patent Literature).
Regarding claim 17, Rathore teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first UE to receive the input to add the third UE during reception of the one or more periodic ringing signals ([0058] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, an operation of selecting an operation to be triggered by a UE is called an in-call action, wherein the in-call action is triggered by the UE 101 when at least one call is in progress with at least one communication device 102.a and 102.b.).
Regarding claim 18, Rathore teaches: wherein the one or more periodic ringing signals are associated with the second UE (Ringing is inherent in all calls according to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia Non-Patent Literature).
Regarding claim 19, Rathore teaches: wherein, in order to take the one or more actions, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first UE to send a cancelation message for the mobile call associated with the second UE ([0048] In various embodiments of the present disclosure, the actions supported by the UE 101 are merging of the first call and the second call, hold one call till the other call is finished/terminated/put on hold, or ending one call while only the other call is being selected to be handled by the UE 101.).
Regarding claim 29, Rathore teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication by a first user equipment (UE), comprising: means for initiating a mobile call associated with a second UE ([0059] Referring to FIG. 3, [t]he UE 101 establishes in operation 302 a first call with a second UE 102.a, wherein the first call is in a first domain.); means for receiving input ([0055] The mixing module 203 can be configured to collect at least one input pertaining to at least one action to be triggered, with respect to the first call and a second call the UE 101 has established with the second UE 102.a and the third UE 102.b, respectively.) means for requesting to add a third UE to the mobile call ([0059] In operation 304 while the first call is in progress, the UE 101 establishes a second call with a third UE 102.b. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the second call is initiated by the UE 101, while the first call is in progress.) prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE (Rathore defines “in progress” to mean “while or after establishing the second call (while the first call is still in progress)” in [0060]); and means for taking one or more actions to establish a mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the received input prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE ([0061] In various embodiments of the present disclosure, in operation 308 a user determines the actions that can be performed are holding one call, merging the first and second calls, or ending one call. Based on the selection made, of the available options, the UE triggers corresponding procedures.).
Regarding claim 29, Rathore teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising: executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first user equipment (UE), cause the apparatus to: initiate a mobile call associated with a second UE ([0059] Referring to FIG. 3, [t]he UE 101 establishes in operation 302 a first call with a second UE 102.a, wherein the first call is in a first domain.); receiving input ([0055] The mixing module 203 can be configured to collect at least one input pertaining to at least one action to be triggered, with respect to the first call and a second call the UE 101 has established with the second UE 102.a and the third UE 102.b, respectively.) request to add a third UE to the mobile call ([0059] In operation 304 while the first call is in progress, the UE 101 establishes a second call with a third UE 102.b. In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the second call is initiated by the UE 101, while the first call is in progress.) prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE (Rathore defines “in progress” to mean “while or after establishing the second call (while the first call is still in progress)” in [0060]); and take one or more actions to establish a mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the received input prior to the mobile call being established with the second UE ([0061] In various embodiments of the present disclosure, in operation 308 a user determines the actions that can be performed are holding one call, merging the first and second calls, or ending one call. Based on the selection made, of the available options, the UE triggers corresponding procedures.).
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 6-7 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathore in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0417798 (hereinafter “Chinthalapudi”)
Regarding claim 6, --- Rathore teaches providing communications over cloud servers ([0005, 0007, 0010]) and creating a conference call between three devices ([0054]). Rathore does not specifically teach: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants; and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a mobile conference call invitation message (Abstract - sending an invite request to a server to initiate a Voice over New Radio (VoNR) service, where the UE is connected with a first network entity, and where the invite request comprises a media feature tag.) to a conference server (400) indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants; and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message ([0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of an invitation and call establishment through a server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing a call between devices through a network server).
Regarding claim 7, Rathore does not teach: the mobile conference call invitation message is sent to the conference server on a same radio access technology (RAT) as a RAT on which the mobile call was initiated; and the mobile conference call invitation message is sent as part of a silent redial at the first UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: the mobile conference call invitation message is sent to the conference server on a same radio access technology (RAT) as a RAT on which the mobile call was initiated ([0070]); and the mobile conference call invitation message is sent as part of a silent redial ([0031] FIGS. 9A-9B illustrate a comparison between a silent redial procedure and the EPS FB timer approach when the EPS FB is failed, according to an embodiment as disclosed herein.) at the first UE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of silent redialing over the same RAT and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing silent redial over a RAT).
Regarding claim 20, --- Rathore teaches providing communications over cloud servers ([0005, 0007, 0010]) and creating a conference call between three devices ([0054]). Rathore does not specifically teach: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants; and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a mobile conference call invitation message (Abstract - sending an invite request to a server to initiate a Voice over New Radio (VoNR) service, where the UE is connected with a first network entity, and where the invite request comprises a media feature tag.) to a conference server (400) indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants; and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message ([0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of an invitation and call establishment through a server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing a call between devices through a network server).
Regarding claim 21, Rathore does not teach: the mobile conference call invitation message is sent to the conference server on a same radio access technology (RAT) as a RAT on which the mobile call was initiated; and the mobile conference call invitation message is sent as part of a silent redial at the first UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: the mobile conference call invitation message is sent to the conference server on a same radio access technology (RAT) as a RAT on which the mobile call was initiated ([0070]); and the mobile conference call invitation message is sent as part of a silent redial ([0031] FIGS. 9A-9B illustrate a comparison between a silent redial procedure and the EPS FB timer approach when the EPS FB is failed, according to an embodiment as disclosed herein.) at the first UE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of silent redialing over the same RAT and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing silent redial over a RAT).
Claims 8-14 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathore in view of Chinthalapudi and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0265932 (hereinafter “Huang”)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi does not teach: wherein the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise first early dialog information indicating at least an identifier of the first UE and an identifier of the second UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches: wherein the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise first early dialog information indicating at least an identifier of the first UE and an identifier of the second UE ([0043] Following acknowledgement of the M2M Group ID by the M2M devices 206-1-m, base station 204 may be operative to provide group-specific information to the M2M devices 206-1-m of group 270, such as group based control signaling, polling paging messages, or broadcast traffic using the multicast channels. The embodiments are not limited in this respect. The foregoing will be better understood with reference to the following examples, transmission diagrams and logic diagrams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of periodic ringing signals indicating an identifier and a combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi with Huang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing silent redial over a RAT).
Regarding claim 9, Rathore does not teach: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call; and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call (S903, S916); and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message (S913a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an ACK from the server).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rathore teaches sending requests for multiple UEs to create a conference call. Rathore does not specifically teach: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information; receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message; sending a second request message to the conference server indicating an identifier of the third UE; and receiving a third acknowledgement message from the conference server for the second request message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information (S903a); receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message (S905b); sending a second request message to the conference server indicating an identifier of the third UE (S915b); and receiving a third acknowledgement message from the conference server for the second request message (S918b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing a second request).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi teaches: the first periodic ringing signal associated with the second UE includes the first early dialog information; and the second periodic ringing signal associated with the fourth UE includes second early dialog information indicating at least an identifier of the first UE and an identifier of a fourth UE ([0043] Following acknowledgement of the M2M Group ID by the M2M devices 206-1-m, base station 204 may be operative to provide group-specific information to the M2M devices 206-1-m of group 270, such as group based control signaling, polling paging messages, or broadcast traffic using the multicast channels. The embodiments are not limited in this respect. The foregoing will be better understood with reference to the following examples, transmission diagrams and logic diagrams), the combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi does not teach: based on the initiated mobile call being forked, the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise a first periodic ringing signal associated with the second UE and a second periodic ringing signal associated with a fourth UE; the second UE and the fourth UE are associated with a same user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches: based on the initiated mobile call being forked ([0041] In various embodiments, multiple individual messages that would otherwise be required to be sent to each of the M2M devices individually may be replaced by a group based message or messaging scheme that may reduce M2M service overhead significantly.), the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise a first periodic ringing signal associated with the second UE and a second periodic ringing signal associated with a fourth UE (Ringing is inherent in establishing a call according to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia Non-Patent Literature); the second UE and the fourth UE are associated with a same user ([0022] a plurality of nodes 104-1-n, where n may represent any positive integer value. In various embodiments, the nodes 104-1-n may be implemented as various types of wireless devices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of forking and associating multiple devices with a user and a combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi with Huang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., forking and associating multiple devices with a user).
Regarding claim 12, Rathore does not teach: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call; and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call (S903, S916); and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message (S913a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an ACK from the server).
Regarding claim 13, Rathore teaches sending requests for multiple UEs to create a conference call. Rathore does not specifically teach: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information; and receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information (S903a); receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message (S905b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., receiving a second acknowledgement message).
Regarding claim 14, Rathore teaches: establishing a conference call with multiple participants. Rathore does not teach: wherein taking the one or more actions further comprises: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants; and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: wherein taking the one or more actions further comprises: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants (S903b); and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message (Abstract - The call is established over the second network entity using the dedicated bearer by sending a service request to the server and/or sending an update request to the server when the EPS FB timer is expired and the EPS FB command is not received from the server.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., inviting multiple devices to establish a conference call).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi does not teach: wherein the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise first early dialog information indicating at least an identifier of the first UE and an identifier of the second UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches: wherein the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise first early dialog information indicating at least an identifier of the first UE and an identifier of the second UE ([0043] Following acknowledgement of the M2M Group ID by the M2M devices 206-1-m, base station 204 may be operative to provide group-specific information to the M2M devices 206-1-m of group 270, such as group based control signaling, polling paging messages, or broadcast traffic using the multicast channels. The embodiments are not limited in this respect. The foregoing will be better understood with reference to the following examples, transmission diagrams and logic diagrams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of periodic ringing signals indicating an identifier and a combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi with Huang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing silent redial over a RAT).
Regarding claim 23, Rathore does not teach: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call; and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call (S903, S916); and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message (S913a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an ACK from the server).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Rathore teaches sending requests for multiple UEs to create a conference call. Rathore does not specifically teach: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information; receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message; sending a second request message to the conference server indicating an identifier of the third UE; and receiving a third acknowledgement message from the conference server for the second request message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information (S903a); receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message (S905b); sending a second request message to the conference server indicating an identifier of the third UE (S915b); and receiving a third acknowledgement message from the conference server for the second request message (S918b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing a second request).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi teaches: the first periodic ringing signal associated with the second UE includes the first early dialog information; and the second periodic ringing signal associated with the fourth UE includes second early dialog information indicating at least an identifier of the first UE and an identifier of a fourth UE ([0043] Following acknowledgement of the M2M Group ID by the M2M devices 206-1-m, base station 204 may be operative to provide group-specific information to the M2M devices 206-1-m of group 270, such as group based control signaling, polling paging messages, or broadcast traffic using the multicast channels. The embodiments are not limited in this respect. The foregoing will be better understood with reference to the following examples, transmission diagrams and logic diagrams), the combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi does not teach: based on the initiated mobile call being forked, the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise a first periodic ringing signal associated with the second UE and a second periodic ringing signal associated with a fourth UE; the second UE and the fourth UE are associated with a same user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang teaches: based on the initiated mobile call being forked ([0041] In various embodiments, multiple individual messages that would otherwise be required to be sent to each of the M2M devices individually may be replaced by a group based message or messaging scheme that may reduce M2M service overhead significantly.), the one or more periodic ringing signals comprise a first periodic ringing signal associated with the second UE and a second periodic ringing signal associated with a fourth UE (Ringing is inherent in establishing a call according to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia Non-Patent Literature); the second UE and the fourth UE are associated with a same user ([0022] a plurality of nodes 104-1-n, where n may represent any positive integer value. In various embodiments, the nodes 104-1-n may be implemented as various types of wireless devices.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include the feature of forking and associating multiple devices with a user and a combination of Rathore and Chinthalapudi with Huang renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., forking and associating multiple devices with a user).
Regarding claim 26, Rathore does not teach: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call; and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server to establish the mobile conference call (S903, S916); and receiving a first acknowledgement message from the conference server for the mobile conference call invitation message (S913a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., providing an ACK from the server).
Regarding claim 27, Rathore teaches sending requests for multiple UEs to create a conference call. Rathore does not specifically teach: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information; and receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: sending a first request message to the conference server indicating the first early dialog information (S903a); receiving a second acknowledgement message from the conference server for the first request message (S905b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., receiving a second acknowledgement message).
Regarding claim 28, Rathore teaches: establishing a conference call with multiple participants. Rathore does not teach: wherein taking the one or more actions further comprises: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants; and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chinthalapudi teaches: wherein taking the one or more actions further comprises: sending a mobile conference call invitation message to a conference server indicating the second UE and the third UE as participants (S903b); and establishing the mobile conference call with the second UE and the third UE based on the mobile conference call invitation message (Abstract - The call is established over the second network entity using the dedicated bearer by sending a service request to the server and/or sending an update request to the server when the EPS FB timer is expired and the EPS FB command is not received from the server.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rathore to include acknowledgement from the server and a combination of Rathore with Chinthalapudi renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., inviting multiple devices to establish a conference call).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2015/0124950 (Koenig) related to call handling
Non-patent Literature entitled, “How to use WhatsApp group calls” IONOS [retrieved on 10/16/2025] <https://web.archive.org/web/20230320192742/https://www.ionos.com/digitalguide/online-marketing/social-media/whatsapp-group-calls/>
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 inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm EST.
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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643