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 §103
2. 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- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matias et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0314440 A1; hereinafter Matias) in view of Way et al (Patent No.: US 10,958,784 B1; hereinafter Way)
Consider claims 1, 8, and 15, Matias clearly shows and discloses a system, one or more computer storage devices, and a method of wireless communication, the method comprising: receiving, by a first user equipment (UB) operating on a wireless network, an incoming call from a remote telephone (computing device 110 may be a mobile telephone; user interface 314A as an example CSS user interface. In response to an incoming call, flow manager 226 of CSS module 220 may cause UIC 212 to present user interface 314 from which a user of computing device 210 is provided with several options for handling the incoming call, response to selecting graphical element 318A, flow manager 226 of CSS module 220 may interpret the user selection of graphical element 318A as a command to interrogate the caller before passing the incoming call to telephone module 222 ) (paragraphs: 0021 and 0107; and figs. 1-3C); without accepting the incoming call, automatically requesting, by the first UE, that the wireless network anchor the incoming call (before answering an incoming telephone call, flow manager 226 of CSS module 220 may determine, based on user input or automatically based on contextual information from context module 224 or a prediction made by a ML model of flow manager 226, that the user would prefer to screen the caller before speaking to him or her directly over the telephone connection) (paragraphs: 0108, 0120, and 0125) ;and receiving, by the first UE, a real time text (RTT) response to an audio request for call context, the RTT response having been converted, by the wireless network, from an audio response to the RTT response (speech engine module 228 may be adapted to understand and transcribe spoken voice input received in a variety of human languages. For example, speech engine module 228 may receive a spoken input in a first language (e.g., Mandarin) and transcribe the spoken input into text written in a second language (e.g., English). In this way, speech engine module 228 may enable asynchronous communication between a user of computing device 210 and a caller) (paragraphs: 0095 and fig. 3G and fig. 4); however, Matias does not disclose another example for without accepting the incoming call, automatically requesting, by the first UE, that the wireless network anchor the incoming call.
In the same field of endeavor, Way clearly specifically discloses another example without accepting the incoming call, automatically requesting, by the first UE, that the wireless network anchor the incoming call (col. 8, lines 28-38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Way into teaching of Matias for the purpose of providing more example for automatically screening call before answering the call.
Consider claims 2, 9, and 16, Matias and Way clearly show the system, the one or more computer storage devices, and the method, further comprising: displaying, on the first UE, the RTT response or reading, by the first UE, the audio response aloud; receiving, by the first UE, an instruction to accept the incoming call or an instruction to reject the incoming call; based on at least receiving the instruction to accept the incoming call, transmitting, to the wireless network, an indication of accepting the incoming call; and based on at least receiving the instruction to reject the incoming call, transmitting, to the wireless network, an indication of rejecting the incoming call (Matias: paragraphs: 0002, 0007, and 0034, and fig. 3H, fig. 3C -3I).
Consider claims 3, 10, and 17, Matias and Way clearly show the system, the one or more computer storage devices, and the method, further comprising: based on at least receiving, by the wireless network, from the first UE, the indication of rejecting the incoming call, terminating the incoming call without connecting the incoming call to voicemail (Matias: paragraphs: 0002, 0007, and 0034, and fig. 3H, fig. 3C -3I).
Consider claims 4, 11, and 18, Matias and Way clearly show the system, the one or more computer storage devices, and the method, further comprising: based on at least receiving, by the wireless network, from the first UE, the indication of accepting the incoming call: creating a dedicated bearer for the first UE; and connecting the incoming call to the first UE, using the dedicated bearer (Matias: paragraphs: 0111 and fig. 4).
Consider claims 5, 12, and 19, Matias and Way clearly show the system, the one or more computer storage devices, and the method, further comprising: receiving, by a first network node of the wireless network, from the remote telephone, the incoming call; forwarding, by the first network node, to the first UE, the incoming call; receiving, by a second network node of the wireless network, from the first UE, the request to anchor the incoming call; anchoring the incoming call at the second network node; transmitting, to the remote telephone, an audio request for call context; receiving, by the second network node, from the remote telephone, an audio response to the audio request for call context; converting, by the second network node, the audio response to an RTT response; and transmitting, to the first UE, the RTT response (Matias: paragraphs: 0120).
Consider claims 6, 13, and 20, Matias and Way clearly show the system, the one or more computer storage devices, and the method, wherein the second network node comprises a media resource function (MRF), and wherein transmitting the RTT response to the first UE comprises transmitting the RTT response on a default bearer (automatically based on contextual information from context module 224) (Matias: paragraphs: 0095, 0108 and fig. 3B and fig. 4).
Consider claims 7, and 14, Matias and Way clearly show the system, and the method, further comprising: initiating, by the remote telephone, the incoming call to the first UE; receiving, by the remote telephone, from the wireless network, an audio request for call context; and transmitting, by the remote telephone, to the wireless network, an audio response to the audio request for call context (Matias: paragraphs: 0117).
Response to Arguments
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on November 20, 2025. Claims 1-20 are now pending in the present application.
Applicant argues on the Applicant’s Response that Matias fail to teach the limitation “without accepting the incoming call, automatically requesting, by the first UE, that the wireless network anchor the incoming call."
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ arguments regarding claims 1, 8, and 15. Matias teaches before answering an incoming telephone call, flow manager 226 of CSS module 220 may determine, based on user input or automatically based on contextual information from context module 224 or a prediction made by a ML model of flow manager 226, that the user would prefer to screen the caller before speaking to him or her directly over the telephone connection (paragraphs: 0108, 0120, and 0125). As a result, Matias teach the above limitation as broadly claimed.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amal Zenati whose telephone number is 571-270-1947. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 -5:00 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/AMAL S ZENATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693