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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1, recite the limitation “other than the primary digital communication device” is vague and unclear. Claims 2-9 inherit the language of claim 1, from which they depend. Therefore, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on the same grounds as claim 1 above. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the above claims as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the cellular telephone”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and has been interpreted as “the primary digital communication device”.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites limitation “the communication device” where it should be “the digital communication device”, and “the recipient” where it should be “a recipient”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 12-18 recites “The method of claim 9” where it should be “The method of claim 10”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 10-11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam (US 20180241868 A1) in view of Williams (US 20220232011 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mahalingam teaches a telephony system, comprising: a primary digital communication device associated with a caller (Fig. 5, mobile device 400), and executing a mobile application (Par. 44); a digital communication device accessible to the user (Fig. 6, landline base/telephone 100) other than the primary digital communication device; and a near-field wireless network coupling the primary digital communication device and the digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device (Pars. 44, 46, mobile device 400 is paired with landline telephone 100); wherein the caller, (Fig. 4 and Par. 44), and the mobile application, through the near-field wireless connection, causes the digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device to place the call (Fig. 6 and Pars. 48-49, the number for the contact is communicated to landline telephone 100 and the landline telephone 100 starts a call).
Mahalingam does not disclose “logged into the mobile application”.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Williams. Williams teaches the user login into a mobile application (Par. 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Williams into Mahalingam to quickly access the contacts to make call.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. The modified Mahalingam further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the primary digital communication device is a smartphone (Par. 45).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. The modified Mahalingam further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the near-field wireless network is a Bluetooth™ network (Par. 46).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. The modified Mahalingam further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the digital communication device accessible to the user other than the primary digital communication device is a landline telephone connected to a landline telephone exchange (Fig. 5), and the call is placed by the landline telephone through the landline exchange (Fig. 6 and Pars. 48-49, the landline telephone 100 starts a call)).
Regarding claim 10, method of claim 10 is performed by apparatus of claim 1. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, method of claim 11 is performed by apparatus of claim 2. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, method of claim 14 is performed by apparatus of claim 5. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, method of claim 16 is performed by apparatus of claim 7. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 7.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam (US 20180241868 A1) in view of Williams (US 20220232011 A1) and in further view of Eubanks et al. (US 20190373100 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. However, the modified Mahalingam does not teach the system of claim 1 wherein the caller has more than one accessible digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device coupled to the primary digital communication device on the near-field wireless network and the caller is enabled by the mobile app to select a device to place the call.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Eubanks. Eubanks teaches land line phone 1 through land line phone 3 connect with the mobile device through Bluetooth or WiFi (Fig. 9 and Par. 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Eubanks into the modified Mahalingam to conveniently connect with tele-communication points throughout a space.
Regarding claim 12, method of claim 12 is performed by apparatus of claim 3. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam (US 20180241868 A1) in view of Williams (US 20220232011 A1) and in further of Gayaldo et al. (US 20230344935 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. However, the modified Mahalingam does not teach the system of claim 1 wherein the caller is enabled by the mobile application to select or enter a caller ID to be displayed to the recipient of the call.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Gayaldo. Gayaldo teaches user enters desired caller ID information and/or select desired caller ID information (Par. 37) and notification is displayed on the recipient/third device include a caller ID (Pars. 57-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Gayaldo into the modified Mahalingam for the recipient effectively identify the initiator of the call.
Regarding claim 13, method of claim 13 is performed by apparatus of claim 4. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam (US 20180241868 A1) in view of Williams (US 20220232011 A1), and in further of Gupta (US 20180199169 A1) and Cook et al. (US 20100240371 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. However, the modified Mahalingam does not teach the system of claim 1 wherein the digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device is not coupled to the near field wireless network, and the primary digital communication device sends a request through a cellular network and a cellular base station to an Internet connected server to implement the call, and the Internet-connected server places a first call to the communication device other than the primary digital communication device, a second call to the recipient, and connects the first and the second call, enabling the caller to converse with the recipient on the digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device.
Gupta teaches call request is initiated by a user at the mobile phone 108 (primary digital communication device) over a wireless internet to server 104 (internet server) (Fig. 1 and Par. 63), the server 104 initiate a “first call 112” to the determined landline phone 102 (digital communication device) and initiate a “second call 114” to the callee communication device 110 (recipient), and connect (shown as 116) the first call 112 with the second call 114 between the determined landline phone 102 and callee communication device 110 (Fig. 1 and Par. 57). It is very well-known that the call request of the mobile 108 as taught by Gupta would go through “a cellular network and a cellular base station” to the internet server 104 as evidence by Cook (see FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Gupta and Cook into the modified Mahalingam to provide flexibility to make calls from anywhere.
Regarding claim 15, method of claim 15 is performed by apparatus of claim 6. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 6.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam (US 20180241868 A1) in view of Williams (US 20220232011 A1) and in further of Beckwith et al. (US 20240422266 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. The modified Mahalingam further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device is a pad device (It is well-known that the electronic device can be a pad device (i.e. iPAD or tablet) (See Par. 45) of Mahalingram or Par. 15 of Williams)) (Pars. 44, 46).
The modified Mahalingam does not teach the digital communication device is connected to the Internet network by a WiFi network and adapted for Voice Over IP (VOIP).
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Beckwith. Beckwith teaches the tablet computer 110-2a connected to the Internet 160 via a WiFi network 140 for placing calls over VoIP engine 135 (Fig. 1 and Pars. 31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Beckwith into the modified Mahalingam to be able to make phone call without cellular service.
Regarding claim 17, method of claim 17 is performed by apparatus of claim 8. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahalingam (US 20180241868 A1) in view of Williams (US 20220232011 A1) and in further of Beckwith et al. (US 20240422266 A1) and Siegel (US 20130310049 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Mahalingam teaches previous claim. The modified Mahalingam further teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the digital communication device other than the primary digital communication device is a laptop or a desktop computer (It is well-known that the electronic device can be a laptop/computer (i.e. iPAD or tablet) (See Par. 45) of Mahalingram or Par. 15 of Williams)) (Pars. 44, 46).
The modified Mahalingam does not teach the digital communication device is connected through an ISP to the Internet, the computer having a telephony application and enabled for VoIP.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Beckwith. Beckwith teaches the tablet computer 110-2a connected to the Internet 160 via ISP 150 for placing calls over VoIP engine 135 (Fig. 1 and Pars. 31-34). It is very well-known the device has a telephone application in order to make VoIP call as evidence by Siegel (Fig. 1 and Par. 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Beckwith and Siegel into the modified Mahalingam to be able to make phone call without cellular service.
Regarding claim 18, method of claim 18 is performed by apparatus of claim 9. They recites same limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Grubb et al. US 20220337691 A1 Figs. 2-5
[0029] The controller device 120 may also have access to user profiles 126, 128. The user profiles 126, 128 may be stored at the controller device 120
[Line 9 of 0029] the user profile 126 can include the user's 114 contacts list. The accessory interaction instance 122 can use the contacts information when parsing the call request, for example to determine a dial-out phone number for the cellular-capable device 130 to call when executing the call request 116
[0031] At block 108, the controller device 120 can instruct the cellular-capable device 130 to place the call corresponding to the call request. In some embodiments, this can include determining a dial-out number for the cellular-capable device 130 to dial when making the call. In other embodiments, the controller device 120 can instruct the cellular-capable device 130 to place the call based upon a label or other identifier contained within the call request 116 (e.g., “Mom,” “the office,” etc.).
[Line 4 of 0033] The smartphone 206 can be a cellular-capable device such as the cellular-capable device 130 of FIG. 1
[Last 6 lines of 0033] The smartphone 206 is not associated with an accessory device. The devices within the home environment 200 can be configured to communicate using one or more network protocols over one or more networks associated with the home environment 200. For example, the home environment 200 can be associated with a local area network (“LAN”), a WAN, a cellular network, a personal area network, or other network, and the devices can communicate using a WiFi connection, a Bluetooth connection, a Thread connection, a Zigbee connection, or other communication method.
Sathyanarayana et al. US 10841756 B1 (Fig. 17)
(31) In an example, the initiating device 120 represents a computing device of a user (e.g., a caller associated with a contacts list), where the computing device includes suitable hardware and software (e.g., one or more processors and one or more memories storing computer-readable instructions) to requesting the data communications and supporting the ongoing communications session 150 (e.g., to place a call). The initiating device 120 can be any of a mobile phone such as a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop, a personal computer, a smart speaker, a smartwatch, a smart appliance, or any other computing device. This computing device is referred to herein as an “initiating” device to indicate that the request for the data communications is sent from the computing device.
(106) As illustrated, the flow may start at operation 1102, where the computer system establishes the data communications between the initiating device and the recipient device. At operation 1104, the computer system receives, from the recipient device, a specific request to transfer the data communications to a target device (e.g., “Alexa, transfer my call to ‘Device ABC’”). In an example, the specific request is sent from the recipient device based on a GUI option or as audio data from a user utterance and identifies a specific target device to which the data communications should be transferred.
(44) In an example of the first stage 201, the computer system 210 receives a request from the initiating device 220 for data communications. The request corresponds to user input of a caller at the initiating device 230. The request can be sent based on a GUI and/or a VUI of the initiating device 220 and can identify a contact specific to a user account or generic to a group account. If a VUI request is made, a language processing system of the computer system 210 (such as the language processing system 112 of FIG. 1) performs ASR and NLU processing based on the corresponding audio data that is received to determine an intent for a type of the data communications (e.g., an audio call or an audio/video call) and a an address of the data communications (e.g., the contact or an address of record). A communications system of the computer system 210 (such as the communications system 111 of FIG. 1) performs a connection resolution to identify one or more devices of the contact, can send one or more directives to the identified device(s) (including the recipient device 230) to initiate a communications session, receive a response back from the recipient device 230, sets up a secure connection between the initiating device 220 and the recipient device 230, and route the data communications between these devices over the secure channel by using one or voice over IP (VoIP) protocols including, but not limited to SIP, RTP, RTCP, SRTP, and SDP or other communication protocols.
Ku et al. US 9124600 B2
(28) As shown in FIG. 4, after the smart phone 1 is succeeded for registration in the smart wireless phone gateway 3, a user can select related name in a phone list of the smart phone 1, and touching a related name displayed on the smart phone for dialing out "dialing+telephone number" message through WiFi to the smart wireless phone gateway 3. After the smart wireless phone gateway 3 receives that message, the smart wireless phone gateway 3 will analyze the message to take the telephone number, and then dial out through ChungHwa Telecom 5 (PSTN, Public switched telephone network).
Nicholas et al. US 20140164126 A1 [0030] Devices, apparatuses and systems, such as for example, a landline or mobile phone 126, a personal digital assistant or tablet computer such as an iPad 128, and a personal computer 124 as illustrated, or any other user communication devices may be utilized within user node 120 to establish such communications.
Hill et al. US 20130178198 A1 NFC
Gayaldo et al. (US 12126767 B1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 4/3/2026