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
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20150009865 A1) in view of Milanese et al. (US 20180132151 A1) and Taulil et al. (US 20100097956 A1).
Regarding claim 1, similarly claims 10 and 19, Sharma teaches a device comprising: a processor (Fig. 4); and a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing computer-executable instructions that (Fig. 4), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive an interaction performed by a user with the device, the interaction generating a request to establish a push-to-talk session with a second user (Fig. 5, block 500 and Pars. 7, 65); in response to the interaction, transmit, to a server associated with push-to-talk service, the request (Fig. 5, block 500 and Par. 65, GCS/server); and receive, from the server, a response indicating the push-to-talk session being established between the device and a second device associated with the second user (Fig. 5, blocks 560 and 564 and Par. 69, grant call (session being established)); and receive, from the server, a notification providing an option to switch the push-to-talk session to “half-duplex” (Fig. 23, block 2310, block 2315 and Pars. 147-148, transitions (switch) the communication session from full-duplex PTT to half-duplex PTT), the notification being generated by the server based on an audio quality associated with the push-to-talk session (Fig. 23, block 2310 and Pars. 147-148);
While Sharma teaches “switch the communication session from full-duplex PTT to half-duplex PTT”, Sharma does not teach the switching is from the full-duplex PTT to a two way audio session.
Milanese teaches it is well-known in the art for the voice connection/conversation push-to-talk established between the two telephones (Par. 28), one of the telephones or the server monitors the quality of the conversation (Par. 29), and the conversation is switched from the push-to-talk/PTT to another (full-duplex or two way audio session) such as GSM communication based on the quality (Fig. 4A and Par. 29, 34, 41). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would be obvious to incorporating the teaching of Milanese into the modified Sharma to maintain the conversation even when one or more communication techniques become not available or degraded.
The modified Sharma does not teach “cause, on the device, the notification to be presented to the user”.
Taulil teaches it is well-known in the art for switching to the better/best link based on the link performance/quality (Fig. 2), wherein in a case of the user prefers the interaction instead of automated switching, a pop-up window alerts the user switch to the better/best link (Fig. 6 and Pars. 52, 72). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would be obvious to incorporating the teaching of Taulil into the modified Sharma for allowing the user the advantage in managing the communication link.
Regarding claim 5, similarly claim 14, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the audio quality associated with the push-to-talk session is monitored by the server after the push-to-talk session is established between the device and the second device, and the server is configured to: determine that the audio quality is lower than a threshold, and in response to the audio quality being lower than the threshold, generate the notification providing the option to switch to the two-way audio session (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, similarly claim 15, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the audio quality associated with the push-to-talk session is denoted by at least one of a signal to noise ratio (SNR) value or a jitter value (Par. 147).
Claims 2-3, 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20150009865 A1) in view of Milanese et al. (US 20180132151 A1) and Taulil et al. (US 20100097956 A1) and Parron et al. (US 20170251084 A1).
Regarding claim 2, similarly claims 11, 20, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: pre-register the device with an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of an evolved packet core (EPC) network.
Parron teaches such well-known feature (Pars. 35, 78). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would be obvious to incorporating the teaching of Parron into the modified Sharma to initiate the service with the network.
Regarding claim 3, similarly claims 12, 20, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma further teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive, from the device, a selection of the option to switch the push-to-talk session to the two-way audio session (Milanese: Par. 51); in response to the selection, transmit, to a second server associated with the IMS, a second request to establish the two-way audio session between the device and the second device (Milanese: Par. 51); receive, from the second server, a second response indicating the two-way audio session being established between the device and the second device (Milanese: Par. 51); and terminate the push-to-talk session between the device and the second device (Milanese: Par. 51).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20150009865 A1) in view of Milanese et al. (US 20180132151 A1) and Taulil et al. (US 20100097956 A1) and Park et al. (US 9379779 B2).
Regarding claim 4, similarly claim 13, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma does not teach the device of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive, from the device, a denial of the option to switch the push-to-talk session to the two-way audio session; and in response to the denial, maintain the push-to-talk session between the device and the second device.
Park teaches such well-known feature (Fig. 17, Col. 20 Lines 35-45). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would be obvious to incorporating the teaching of Park into the modified Sharma for allowing the user the advantage in managing the communication link.
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (US 20150009865 A1) in view of Milanese et al. (US 20180132151 A1) and Taulil et al. (US 20100097956 A1) and in further view of Cole et al. US 20090017865 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20060215570 A1).
Regarding claim 7, similarly claim 16, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma does not teach claim 7.
Cole teaches it is well-known that the device of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive, from the network, an error message after a period of time, the error message indicating the server has no response to the request (Par. 88); transmit, to a second server associated with the network, a second request to establish the two-way audio session between the device and the second device associated with the second user (Par. 89); and receive, from the second server, a second response indicating the two-way audio session being established between the device and the second device (Par. 89). It is also very well-known that the error message is sent or received after a period of time as evidence by Zhang, (Par. 99). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would be obvious to incorporating the teaching of Cole and Zhang into the modified Sharma for allowing the user the advantage in managing the communication link.
Regarding claim 8, similarly claim 17, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma further teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the second user includes a plurality of second users, and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to: receive a second interaction performed by the user with the device, the second interaction including a selection of a target second user from the plurality of second users (Cole: Fig. 4 and Par. 70); and in response to the selection, transmit, to the second server, the second request to establish the two-way audio session between the device and a target second device associated with the target second user (Cole: Par. 70).
Regarding claim 9, similarly claim 18, the modified Sharma teaches previous claim. The modified Sharma further teaches the device of claim 8, wherein a number of the plurality of the second users is equal to or less than four (Cole: Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Koren et al. (US 8929938 B2)
Gunnalan et al. US 20210084556 A1
White US 20160057676 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 12/12/2025