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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. PCT/KR2023/013931, filed September 15, 2023, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or divisional. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Applicant has not provided a certified copy of the international application. Applicant is required to “certify that the international application was not withdrawn or considered to be withdrawn, either generally or as to the United States, prior to the filing date of the national application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365(c) to such international application.” MPEP § 1895.01.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 are pending in the application. Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims along with other remarks. Applicant’s amendments regarding 112(b) have overcome the rejection. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 are still rejected by prior art references, refer to the following rejection for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pp. 8-12 of the response, filed March 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration for the amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new reference, please see the rejection for details.
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 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,335,439 (hereinafter “Taylor”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0138804 (hereinafter “Mao”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0382251 (hereinafter “Wang”)
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches: A wireless electronic device comprising: a communication circuit; memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communication circuit and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to (e.g., 4:4-6, customer): connect, via a server using he communication circuit, a call with a first external electronic device (4:4-6, receiving a call (e.g., phone call) from a caller (e.g., customer) at a first call center in step 12), . . . based on an occurrence of a call transfer event for establishing a call connection between the first external electronic device and a second external electronic device (6:26-30 - After the identifier is provided to the caller, the call center data transfer system may then transfer the call, such as to the second CSR in a second call center, in step 18), store execution state information of the application program (3:49-51 - Upon transfer of the call to a second CSR, the unique identifier may enable the second CSR to access the call data obtained during the conversation the first CSR.), establish a second data channel between the wireless electronic device and the second external electronic device, transmit, to the second external electronic device via the second data channel, the execution state information of the application program (3:49-51 - access the call data obtained during the conversation the first CSR.), transmit, to the server (Fig. 2, computer system 42), information on the transferring of the call connection (Fig. 1, step 18) from the first external electronic device (Fig. 2, Workstation 56) to the second external electronic device (Fig. 2 Workstation 58).
Taylor does not explicitly teach: establish, via the server, a first data channel between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device based on the call connected with the first external electronic device, the first data channel being different from the call, share, with the first external electronic device via the first data channel, data related to an application program while maintaining the call.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mao teaches: establish, via the server, a first data channel between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device based on the call connected with the first external electronic device, the first data channel being different from the call ([0102] An interaction protocol stack (communication platform SDK) based on a communication cloud signaling system is implemented, and signaling-plane interaction control for account management, device and capability discovery, NG-RTC audio and video (including P2P)), share, with the first external electronic device via the first data channel, data related to an application program while maintaining the call. ([0101] The streaming media information processing module is configured to implement processing of audio call streaming media data, video call streaming media data, and screen sharing streaming media data, including capturing a screen in real time, encoding an audio and a video into video frames, and transmitting the video frames to a peer device to implement screen sharing.).
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 Taylor to include the feature of storing data in an application and a combination of Taylor with Mao 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 data storage based on a call transfer).
To the extent that the combination of Taylor and Mao does not teach: based on receiving, from the server, information on release of the call generated based on the information on the call transfer, release the call between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device.
Wang teaches: based on receiving, from the server, information on release of the call generated based on the information on the call transfer, release the call between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device ([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 the combination of Taylor and Mao to include the feature of releasing the call after transfer and a combination of Taylor and Mao with Wang 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., releasing the call after transfer).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: based on the occurrence of the event related to the transferring of the call connection, transmit, to the first external electronic device via the server, the information on the transferring of the call connection (4:43-50, Regardless of how the call data is obtained by the call center data transfer system, the call center data transfer system then stores the call data to facilitate retrieval by one or more CSRs (e.g., in the first call center or in another call center) in step 14. The call data may be stored in one or more databases (e.g., shared databases; central databases) that are accessible to and/or that are part of the call center data transfer system.).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor does not explicitly teach: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device based on a real-time communication (RTC) function in a state in which the call connection is connected to the first external electronic device, download the application program from the server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mao teaches: based on a real-time communication (RTC) function in a state in which the call connection is connected to the first external electronic device ([0102] device and capability discovery, NG-RTC audio and video (including P2P)), download the application program from the server ([0102]-[0108]).
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 Taylor to include the feature of RTC application downloads and a combination of Taylor with Mao 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 application downloads by a API during RTC).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor teaches: wherein the execution state information of the application program includes at least one of identification information of the first external electronic device (3:46-48 - For example, the call center data transfer system may associate the call and/or the call data obtained during a conversation with a first CSR with the unique identifier) or information on a current driving state of the application program.
Regarding claim 9, Taylor teaches: An operation method of a wireless electronic device, the operation method comprising: connecting, via a server, a call with a first external electronic device (4:4-6, receiving a call (e.g., phone call) from a caller (e.g., customer) at a first call center in step 12), . . . based on an occurrence of a call transfer event for establishing a call connection between the first external electronic device and a second external electronic device (6:26-30 - After the identifier is provided to the caller, the call center data transfer system may then transfer the call, such as to the second CSR in a second call center, in step 18), store execution state information of the application program (3:49-51 - Upon transfer of the call to a second CSR, the unique identifier may enable the second CSR to access the call data obtained during the conversation the first CSR.), establish a second data channel between the wireless electronic device and the second external electronic device, transmit, to the second external electronic device via the second data channel, the execution state information of the application program (3:49-51 - access the call data obtained during the conversation the first CSR.), transmit, to the server (Fig. 2, computer system 42), information on the transferring of the call connection (Fig. 1, step 18) from the first external electronic device (Fig. 2, Workstation 56) to the second external electronic device (Fig. 2 Workstation 58).
Taylor does not explicitly teach: establish, via the server, a first data channel between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device based on the call connected with the first external electronic device, the first data channel being different from the call, share, with the first external electronic device via the first data channel, data related to an application program while maintaining the call.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mao teaches: establish, via the server, a first data channel between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device based on the call connected with the first external electronic device, the first data channel being different from the call ([0102] An interaction protocol stack (communication platform SDK) based on a communication cloud signaling system is implemented, and signaling-plane interaction control for account management, device and capability discovery, NG-RTC audio and video (including P2P)), share, with the first external electronic device via the first data channel, data related to an application program while maintaining the call. ([0101] The streaming media information processing module is configured to implement processing of audio call streaming media data, video call streaming media data, and screen sharing streaming media data, including capturing a screen in real time, encoding an audio and a video into video frames, and transmitting the video frames to a peer device to implement screen sharing.).
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 Taylor to include the feature of storing data in an application and a combination of Taylor with Mao 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 data storage based on a call transfer).
To the extent that the combination of Taylor and Mao does not teach: based on receiving, from the server, information on release of the call generated based on the information on the call transfer, release the call between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device.
Wang teaches: based on receiving, from the server, information on release of the call generated based on the information on the call transfer, release the call between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device ([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 the combination of Taylor and Mao to include the feature of releasing the call after transfer and a combination of Taylor and Mao with Wang 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., releasing the call after transfer).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor teaches: based on the occurrence of the call transfer event, transmitting, to the first external electronic device via the server, the information on the call transfer event (4:43-50, Regardless of how the call data is obtained by the call center data transfer system, the call center data transfer system then stores the call data to facilitate retrieval by one or more CSRs (e.g., in the first call center or in another call center) in step 14. The call data may be stored in one or more databases (e.g., shared databases; central databases) that are accessible to and/or that are part of the call center data transfer system.).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor does not explicitly teach: based on a real-time communication (RTC) function in a state in which the call connection is connected to the first external electronic device, downloading the application program from the server.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mao teaches: based on a real-time communication (RTC) function in a state in which the call connection is connected to the first external electronic device, ([0102] device and capability discovery, NG-RTC audio and video (including P2P)), downloading the application program from the server ([0102]-[0108]).
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 Taylor to include the feature of RTC application downloads and a combination of Taylor with Mao 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 application downloads by a API during RTC).
Regarding claim 15, Taylor teaches: based on receiving, from the server, the information on release of the call while a call between the wireless electronic device and the second external electronic device is in a holding call state, releasing the a-call between the wireless electronic device and he second external electronic device (5:41-45) transfer of the call away from the first CSR and/or prior to the transfer of the call to another CSR).
Regarding claim 16, Taylor teaches: wherein the execution state information of the application program includes at least one of identification information of the first external electronic device (3:46-48 - For example, the call center data transfer system may associate the call and/or the call data obtained during a conversation with a first CSR with the unique identifier) or information on a current driving state of the application program.
Regarding claim 17, Taylor teaches: wherein the call transfer event occurs based on at least one of an input related to a call transfer, reception of a signal related to the call transfer, or acquisition of motion information related to the call transfer (9:43-48, For example, during the call, the first CSR may determine that the call should be transferred. The first CSR may then provide the indication that the call should be transferred (e.g., the indication may be a request from the first CSR via the workstation 56 that the computer system 42 provide an identifier to be assigned to the call).)..
Regarding claim 18, Taylor does not explicitly teach: wherein the data channel includes an Internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) data channel, and wherein the direct communication includes peer-to-peer (P2P) communication.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mao teaches: wherein the data channel includes an Internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) data channel ([0102] As a communication platform SDK, VoipService can be integrated with a plurality of devices and device apps to meet cross-platform requirements.), and wherein the direct communication includes peer-to-peer (P2P) communication ([0102] NG-RTC audio and video (including P2P)).
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 Taylor to include the feature of cross-platform VOIP and P2P services and a combination of Taylor with Mao 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 cross-platform VOIP and P2P).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The combination of Taylor, Mao, and Wang teaches releasing the call between the wireless electronic device and the first external electronic device, but does not teach: terminating a driving of the application program, acquiring the application program from the server, or releasing the call between the wireless electronic device and both the first external electronic device and the second external electronic device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0149836 (Narayanan) related to a communication and messaging architecture for affiliated real-time rich communications client devices.
U.S. Publication No. 2015/0163295 (Shmilov) related to VVOIP call transfer
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 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
/YUWEN PAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights