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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2025-08-15 and 2025-12-26 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, filed 2026-01-19) with respect to the independent claims 1, 9, and 17, and in light of the amendments to the independent claims filed 2026-01-19, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,587,576 to Agrawal et al. (“Agrawal ‘576”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-19 of the instant application are variously anticipated by claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 of Agrawal ‘576, as shown below:
Instant application, claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 9 and 17)
Reference Patent, Agrawal ‘576 claim 1 (and similarly, claims 8 and 13)
A method, comprising: detecting, via a mobile wireless device communicatively linked to a computing device, that a user desires to exit a conference call session between the computing device and a remote computing device; determining that a video feed of the conference call session is active on the computing device; causing to display on a display device of the mobile wireless device based on the video feed of the conference call session being active, a prompt including at least one contextual transcript; sending, to the mobile wireless device and based on input relative to the prompt, a selected contextual transcript , the mobile wireless device generating a cloned audio message from the selected contextual transcript, the cloned audio message generated to sound like someone other than the user in proximity to the user; and sending the cloned audio message to an external speaker that emits the cloned audio message.
A method, comprising: maintaining a contextual transcript and a pre-recorded audio message; detecting that a user desires to exit a conference call; determining that a video feed of the conference call is active or inactive, and one of: based on the video feed of the conference call being active; displaying a prompt to generate a modified pre-recorded audio message; generating the modified pre-recorded audio message by applying at least one of modulation or a depth effect to the pre-recorded audio message to sound like someone other than the user; and providing the modified pre-recorded audio message to an external speaker that emits the modified pre-recorded audio message; or based on the video feed of the conference call being inactive: recording an audio message of the user reading the contextual transcript during the conference call to generate a recorded audio message; applying at least one of the modulation or the depth effect to the recorded audio message to generate a modified recorded audio message; and providing the modified recorded audio message to the external speaker that emits the modified recorded audio message
Instant application, claim 2 (and similarly applied to claims 10 and 18)
Agrawal ‘576, claim 2 (and similarly claims 9 and 14)
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting includes detecting a gesture of the user indicating the user desires to exit the conference call session.
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting includes detecting a gesture of the user that indicates the user desires to exit the conference call.
Instant application, claim 3 (and similarly applied to claims 11 and 19)
Agrawal ‘576, claim 3 (and similarly claims 10 and 15)
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting includes detecting a comment communicated by the user during the conference call session that indicates the user desires to exit the conference call session.
The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting includes detecting a comment communicated by the user during the conference call that indicates the user desires to exit the conference call.
Instant application, claim 7 (and similarly applied to claim 15)
Agrawal ‘576, claim 4 (and similarly claim 17)
The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the video feed of the conference call session is active on the computing device includes a camera of the computing device capturing video images of the user.
The method of claim 1, wherein the video feed being active includes a camera of a computing device capturing video images of the user.
Instant application, claim 8 (and similarly applied to claim 16)
Agrawal ‘576, claim 7 (and similarly claims 16 and 20)
The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying, based on the video feed of the conference call session being active, the prompt on the mobile wireless device instructing the user to look in an indicated direction from which the external speaker emits the cloned audio message.
The method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying the prompt on a media device instructing the user to look in an indicated direction.
As can be seen above, claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 13) of the reference patent Agrawal ‘576. Therefore, claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) of the instant application is anticipated by claim 1 (and similarly claims 8 and 13) of Agrawal ‘576.
Claim 2 (and similarly claims 10 and 18) of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 2 (and similarly claims 9 and 14) of the reference patent Agrawal ‘576. Therefore, claim 2 (and similarly claims 10 and 18) of the instant application is anticipated by claim 2 (and similarly claims 9 and 14) of Agrawal ‘576.
Claim 3 (and similarly claims 11 and 19) of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 3 (and similarly claims 10 and 15) of the reference patent Agrawal ‘576. Therefore, claim 3 (and similarly claims 11 and 19) of the instant application is anticipated by claim 3 (and similarly claims 10 and 15) of Agrawal ‘576.
Claim 7 (and similarly claim 15) of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 4 (and similarly claim 17) of the reference patent Agrawal ‘576. Therefore, claim 7 (and similarly claim 15) of the instant application is anticipated by claim 4 (and similarly claim 17) of Agrawal ‘576.
Claim 8 (and similarly claim 16) of the instant application is broader in scope than claim 7 (and similarly claims 16 and 20) of the reference patent Agrawal ‘576. Therefore, claim 8 (and similarly claim 16) of the instant application is anticipated by claim 7 (and similarly claims 16 and 20) of Agrawal ‘576.
Any patent granted on any of claims 1-3, 7-11, and/or 15-19 of the instant application would result in the unjustifiable timewise extension of Agrawal ‘576. Thus, claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-19 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, and 20 of Agrawal ‘576.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 12-14, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
Agrawal, Amit Kumar et al. (2026). Modulation-based call exit management (US 12587576 B2). Filed 2023-08-11.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Alameh, Rachid et al. (2019). Electronic device with voice-synthesis and corresponding methods (US 2019/0287513 A1). Filed 2018-03-15.
Barry, Michael John et al. (2023). Multilingual conversation tool (US 2023/0259719 A1). Filed 2021-06-29.
Braun, Max Benjamin et al. (2018). Message suggestions (US 9,860,200 B1). Filed 2014-08-27.
Caro, Pablo F. et al. (2023). Methods and user interfaces for initiating communications (US 2023/0308538 A1). Filed 2023-05-24.
Chang, Jae Woo et al. (2022). Adaptive video conference user interfaces (US 2022/0374136 A1). Filed 2022-05-16.
Carty, Gerard et al. (2018). Real-time speech feed to agent greeting (US 2018/0338040 A1). Filed 2017-05-19.
Chisu, Daniel C. et al. (2018). Monitoring environmental noise and data packets to display a transcription of call audio (US 2018/0373488 A1). Filed 2017-06-21.
Episkopos, Dennis et al. (2018). Gesture-based control and usage of video relay systems (US 2018/0129295 A1). Filed 2017-08-28.
Fang, Rongjie et al. (2023). Device interaction method and electronic device (US 2023/0216990 A1). Filed 2021-03-16.
Feerst, Danielle Alexis (2015). System and method for improving presentation skills (US 9,072,478 B1). Filed 2014-06-10.
Fryer-Mcculloch, Morgan et al. (2024). Customized dialogue support (US 2024/0029725 A1). Filed 2022-07-21.
Herman, Brad K. et al. (2023). Contextual reminders (US 2023/0267422 A1). Filed 2023-02-03.
Karunamuni, Chanaka G. et al. (2023). Devices, methods, and graphical user interfaces for updating a session region (US 2023/0359315 A1). Filed 2022-09-22.
Leblang, Jonathan Alan et al. (2020). Network conference management and arbitration via voice-capturing devices (US 10,536,288 B1). Filed 2017-12-13.
Lehaff, Samir G. et al. (2002). Mobile communication system for a network (US 2002/0123331 A1). Filed 2002-03-01.
Lovitt, Andrew William et al. (2014). Using physical gestures to initiate call transfers between devices (US 2014/0369483 A1). Filed 2013-06-14.
Raanani, Roy et al. (2019). In-call virtual assistant (US 2019/0057698 A1). Filed 2018-10-19.
Roh, Jeffrey et al. (2025). System for transcribing and performing analysis on patient data (US 2025/0255678 A1). Filed 2025-04-21.
Rothera, Alexander H. et al. (2022). Overlaying an image of a conference call participant with a shared document (US 2022/0374190 A1). Filed 2021-12-13.
Sharifi, Matthew et al. (2022). Selectively providing enhanced clarification prompts in automated assistant interactions (US 2022/0189474 A1). Filed 2020-12-15.
Sheshaiahgari, Srikanth Reddy et al. (2020). Computer-based systems and methods configured for one or more technological applications for the automated assisting of telephone agent services (US 10,574,822 B1). Filed 2019-09-16.
Wu, Biao et al. (2025). Voiceprint recognition method, graphical interface, and electronic device (US 2025/0078841 A1). Filed 2022-12-28.
Conclusion
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 SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 7am – 4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights