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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claim(s) is/are directed to a machine-readable storage medium, which can be a transitory as defined in paragraph [0064] of the instant application. Such definition of machine-readable storage medium could make the medium a signal per se and thus, not a patent eligible subject matter. It is suggested to change “computer-readable storage medium” of claims 15-20 to -- non-transitory computer-readable storage medium --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poovappa et al (US 2019/0207935).
Regarding independent claim 1, Poovappa teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: receiving a voicemail from a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), wherein the voicemail comprises a profile identifier associated with a user ([0023]-[0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035]-0038] and [0051]); determining, based at least in part on the profile identifier, that the user has access to a media storage ([0023]-[0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035]-0038] and [0051]); based on determining the user has access to the media storage, storing the voicemail on the media storage ([0023]-[0025], [0028]-[0029], [0035]-0038] and [0051]); generating a first notification based at least in part on storing the voicemail ([0035]); and transmitting the first notification to a user device associated with the user ([0035]).
Regarding independent claims 8 and 15, the claims are corresponding apparatus claims and recite similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9 and 16, Poovappa further teaches receiving an access request from a user device, wherein the access request comprises at least a device identifier associated with the user device; and storing the device identifier associated with the user device on the media storage. See [0044].
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10 and 17, Poovappa further teaches wherein the access request further comprising one or more of: a PIN associated with the user device, or a greeting message, wherein the method further comprising: storing the PIN or the greeting message on the media storage. See [0044].
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11 and 18, Poovappa further teaches receiving, from the user device, a request to retrieve the voicemail; transmitting the voicemail to the user device; in response to transmitting the voicemail to the user device, generating a second notification; and transmitting the second notification to the user device. See [0038] - [0046].
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12 and 19, Poovappa further teaches sending a PIN request to the user device; receiving, from the user device, a PIN associated with the user device; and authenticating, based at least in part on the PIN, the user associated with the user device. See [0038] - [0046].
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13 and 20, Poovappa further teaches receiving, from the MVNO, a request to retrieve the voicemail; transmitting the voicemail to the MVNO; in response to transmitting the voicemail to the MVNO, generating a second notification; and transmitting the second notification to the user device. See [0038] - [0046].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poovappa et al (US 2019/0207935) in view of Guo et al (US 2015/0281459) or Desai et al (US 2015/0326727).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14, Poovappa teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach deleting and removing voicemail from storage. However, voicemail system having function of deleting and removing voicemail messages is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Guo or Desai, from the same field of endeavor, teaches deleting and removing voicemail messages from voicemail storage. See Guo: [0010] or Desai: [0001] and [0048]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Poovappa by employing the teachings as taught by Guo or Desai so as to free up storage space.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Long et al (US 2008/0305803), Hao et al (US 2009/0156176) and Sharma (US 2024/0205686) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for managing voicemails.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights