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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 09/30/2025. Claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 11, 15 and 19 have been presently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues on pages 32-34 that neither Szlam nor Nakatsu suggests the interleaving of interjection into a script presentation. This argument is not relevant. It is because, the applicant did not claim limitation. Instead, the applicant claims interleaving live responses and recorded scripts. Szlam teaches this limitation (see Col. 8, lines 45-58, Col. 9, line 51- Col. 10, line 8).
Thus, the rejection of the claim will remain. The rejection of the claims 19 and 20 will remain for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues on pages 5-8 that Sigmund does not disclose or suggest, " Playing a video greeting from the chosen call box; " Recording a video message through the interface; "Providing an option to upload a video file in lieu of recording a video message”. It is because, Sigmund teaches uploading the new video. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. It is because, the applicant did not claim uploading the new video or the old video. Instead, the applicant claims uploading a video. This video can be either old or new. Thus, Sigmund teaches this limitation (see fig.6; col.11, lines 62-67). Thus, the rejection of the claim in view of Sigmund will remain.
Regarding claim 16, the applicant argues on pages 5-8 that Sigmund does not disclose or suggest, " "Providing video editing tools to manage the greeting if the selecting of the action is to record a video message as a greeting”. It is because "a boxholder may record greetings (232) or delete existing greetings (233). Some embodiments may allow selection of uploaded files as greetings or provide video editing tools to manage their greetings". Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. It is because, in fig.6; col.11, lines 43-67, Sigmund teaches that at block 602, a user of the mobile device 200 can select a saved video greeting or select an option to record a new video greeting and at block 604, it is determined if a saved video greeting was selected. At block 606, wherein the user is prompted to record a new video greeting and a new video greeting is recorded. After the new video greeting is recorded, the mobile device 200 can upload the new video greeting to the VMS 110. Thus, using the mobile device [i.e., video editing tools], the user can upload the new video greeting to the VMS 110. Therefore, Sigmund teaches this limitation. Thus, the rejection of the claim in view of Sigmund will remain.
.
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 1-3, 7, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sigmund et al. (US Patent No. 8,831,573).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-8, Sigmund teaches a method comprising:
Receiving a message request from a caller (abstract; fig.3, steps 302, 314, fig.4, step 408; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Providing the caller with an interface by a server over a network (abstract; fig.3, steps 302, 314, fig.4, step 408; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Providing a selection of one or more call boxes from which to choose through the interface (fig.3, steps 302, 314, fig.4, step 408; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Choosing a call box with which to interact through the interface (fig.3, steps 302, 314, fig.4, step 408; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Playing a video greeting from the chosen call box (fig.3, steps 302, 314, fig.4, step 408; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Recording a video message through the interface (fig.4, step 416; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Providing an option to send a text-based message in lieu of recording a video message (fig.7; col.12, lines 16-40);
Providing an option to upload a video file in lieu of recording a video message (fig.6; col.11, lines 43-67);
Storing the recorded video message on a non-transitory storage device (fig.4, step 416; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20);
Exiting the interface and network communications (fig.3, fig.4; col.8, lines 47-48, 54-55, col.10, lines 10-12, 19-20, 60-67).
Regarding claim 2, Sigmund teaches wherein the non-transitory storage device is located on the server (fig.1; col.2, lines 56-61, col.4, lines 51-55, claim 13).
Regarding claim 3, Sigmund teaches wherein the greeting of the chosen call box is selected through the interface from a list of available greetings provided by the interface (fig.3, steps 302, 314, fig.4, step 408; col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 7, Sigmund teaches wherein choosing the call box with which to interact allows an interactable search to choose a call box (col.7, lines 56-67, col.8, lines 1-2, 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 10, Sigmund teaches wherein the interface allows a caller the options to review and/or record a replacement video message before Storing the recorded video message (fig.4, step 408; col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 12, Sigmund teaches wherein the text-based message is an SMS message (fig.2; col.6, lines 4-27, col.12, lines 16-40) (Note; since the text greeting message is using one of the application, SMS application, it is clear that the text greeting message is also sms message.).
Regarding claim 13, Sigmund teaches wherein the text-based message is an email message (fig.2; col.6, lines 4-27, col.12, lines 16-40) (Note; since the text greeting message is using one of the application, e-mail messaging application, it is clear that the text greeting message is also email message.).
Regarding claim 14, Sigmund teaches the caller receiving a message through the interface while exiting the interface (fig.3, fig.4; col.8, lines 47-48, 54-55, col.10, lines 10-12, 19-20, 60-67) (Note; since the process ends, the caller must receive a message for ending the process.).
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, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 4-6, 8, 9, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sigmund et al. (US Patent No. 8,831,573).
Regarding claim 4, Sigmund teaches providing the caller with an interface and providing a selection of one or more call boxes: Prompting the caller to provide login credentials through the interface (fig.7; col.12, lines 16-40).
However, Sigmund does not specifically teach Verifying the login credentials of the caller by the server. Examiner takes an official notice that Verifying the login credentials of the caller by the server is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sigmund to incorporate the feature of Verifying the login credentials of the caller by the server in Sigmund’s invention in order to provide authentication of a caller conveniently.
Regarding claim 5, Sigmund does not specifically teach wherein the login credentials are verified using two-factor authentication. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the login credentials are verified using two-factor authentication is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sigmund to incorporate the feature of wherein the login credentials are verified using two-factor authentication in Sigmund’s invention in order to authenticate a caller very securely.
Regarding claim 6, Sigmund does not specifically teach wherein the login credentials are verified using biometric technology. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the login credentials are verified using biometric technology is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sigmund to incorporate the feature of wherein the login credentials are verified using biometric technology in Sigmund’s invention in order to authenticate a caller using biometric technology conveniently.
Regarding claim 8, Sigmund does not specifically teach wherein the interactable search is a keyword search. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the interactable search is a keyword search is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sigmund to incorporate the feature of wherein the interactable search is a keyword search in Sigmund’s invention in order to provide a keyword search conveniently.
Regarding claim 9, Sigmund teaches wherein the caller may stop [i.e., interrupt] the recording of a video greeting [i.e., greeting] of the chosen call box (fig.8; col.13, lines 22-30).
However, Sigmund does not specifically teach wherein the caller may interrupt the greeting playback. Examiner takes an official notice that wherein the caller may interrupt the greeting playback is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sigmund to incorporate the feature of wherein the caller may interrupt the greeting playback in Sigmund’s invention in order to provide an option for a caller to stop the greeting conveniently.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 4. Furthermore, Sigmund teaches wherein the management options are a message retrieval option (col.2, lines 28-41), a message recording option (col.11, lines 43-67), and a settings option (col.6, lines 4-13) (fig.6; col.2, lines 28-41, col.6, lines 4-24, col.7, lines 56-66, col.11, lines 43-67);
Providing video editing tools to manage the greeting if the selecting of the action is to record a video message as a greeting (fig.6; col.11, lines 43-67) (Note; fig.6; col.11, lines 43-67, Sigmund teaches that at block 602, a user of the mobile device 200 can select a saved video greeting or select an option to record a new video greeting and at block 604, it is determined if a saved video greeting was selected. At block 606, wherein the user is prompted to record a new video greeting and a new video greeting is recorded. After the new video greeting is recorded, the mobile device 200 can upload the new video greeting to the VMS 110. Thus, using the mobile device [i.e., video editing tools], the user can upload the new video greeting to the VMS 110.).
Regarding claim 17, Sigmund teaches wherein one of the management options provided is a message retrieval option and one of the actions associated with the message retrieval option is to playback a stored video message (fig.3, fig.4; col.2, lines 35-41, col.7, lines 56-57, col.8, lines 1-6, 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 18, Sigmund teaches wherein one of the actions associated with the message retrieval option is to delete a stored video message (fig.3, fig.4; col.6, lines 4--27).
Regarding claim 20, Sigmund teaches wherein one of the management options provided is a settings option and one or more of the actions associated with the settings option are to modify stored information associated with the boxholder’s account (col.6, lines 4-27, col.8, lines 31-62, col.9, lines 11-67, col.10, lines 1-20).
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 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 MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. 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).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
November 29, 2025