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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicant’s amendment which was filed on 11/17/2025 and has been entered. Claims 2, 3 and 12 have been amended. No claims have been added. Claims 1- 7 and 9-12 are pending in this application, with claims 1, 9 and 11 being independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality:
It recites “determining whether the callee authorizes; and ……..”. It should be –determining if the callee authorizes direct recording of voice messages; and --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 – 4 and 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clift et al (US 20070168428 A1), hereinafter “Clift”.
Clift discloses a “Communications System with Direct Access Mailbox.” It teaches (PP 0040) that user A (caller) can elect to send an audio-visual communication directly to the mailbox of user B (callee), that is user A decides to directly leave a voice mail message for user B.
Regarding Claim 1, Clift discloses a computer-implemented method to directly record a voice message (user A decides to directly leave a voice mail message for user B, PP 0040 and Fig. 4), said method being implemented by a proxy server (IN Messaging Application 6, Fig. 4). The IN-Messaging Application may be part of the intelligent network as discussed below. Clift teaches (PP 38) that “in the specific arrangement illustrated in FIG. 2, a messaging application 6 is provided as part of the Intelligent Network, and connected to database 7 containing caller profiles. Clift teaches that the method comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment of a caller (device 2 of user A, Fig. 4) a call set-up request comprising information (such as prefix – which depends on the type of network being used, SIP messages may be used as taught by Clift, see below) indicating a request by the caller to record a voice message directly on a voicemail server (mail platform 11, Fig. 4) serving a callee (user A/caller uses telephone 2 to dial a three-digit prefix followed by the telephone number of user B/callee, PP 0040). Again, SIP messages may be utilized. While Clift teaches an example of using the prefix, it clearly teaches:
“[0043] In the specific embodiment, the entries in the database relate to the standard telephone numbers associated with the users, since these can be easily be compared against the calling line identifiers presented by the current service. However, it is understood that any other suitable identification criteria associated with the users or the devices which they use could be stored instead (for example, if needed to support other network types), such as IP (internet protocol) addresses or SIP (session initiation protocol) addresses.
discriminating, in the received call set-up request, said information indicating a request for direct recording of a voice message (e.g., CLI of the caller is relayed to the intelligent network together with an indication that the caller is requesting direct access to mailbox. The Intelligent Network messaging application stores the CLI for calling party A for later use, PP 0040 and 0041);
responsive to said discriminating, in the received call set-up request, said information indicating a request for direct recording of a voice message, retrieving callee status information (in order to give subscriber/callee B control over the direct access to his or her voice mailbox, the direct voice mail access DVMA feature can be activated, deactivated or temporarily blocked by subscriber/callee B dialing the appropriate service codes, PP 0004). Also, the claimed “callee status” may read on the teaching of determining that the callee (user B) is a subscriber for direct voice mail service, see pp 0035.
discriminating direct-voicemail authorization data in the retrieved callee status information (see P0004 and step 6, Fig.1 for determining if direct mailbox access is activated/allowed). This may also read on determining that the callee/user B is a subscriber for this special service.
responsive to said discriminating direct-voicemail authorization data in the retrieved callee status information, setting up a communication session between the user equipment of the caller (device 2 of user A, Fig. 4) and said voicemail server (platform 11) serving the callee (user B) to enable recording of said voice message, (user A leaves a voicemail message in mailbox 11a of the mail platform, see abstract and PPs 0038 and 0044.)
Regarding Claim 2, as discussed above, in Clift, if the callee (user B) authorizes (reads on subscribing for the service, and/or activating the service) direct recoding of voice messages, then voicemail server serving the callee (mail platform 11) is accessed and the caller/user A is enabled to record a voice message.
Regarding Claim 3, Clift teaches determining that the callee authorizes direct recording of voice messages conditionally dependent on the caller identity and determining the identity of the caller and: if the determined caller is authorized by the callee to directly record voicemails, determining which voicemail server is the voicemail server (platform 11) serving the callee (user B) and setting up said communication session between the user equipment of the caller (device 2) and said voicemail server (platform 11) serving the callee, to enable recording of said voicemail voice message (PP 0041, the IN messaging application 6 compares the identity of the calling party with the CLI recorded earlier, to determine whether this caller has requested direct access to the mailbox. If so, then at step S6, the messaging application consults the contents of database 7 to determine whether this caller is allowed direct access to the mailbox of user B.)
Regarding Claim 4, Clift teaches an example of using the CLI (line identification) for the user B/callee and determining that the called user B/callee uses mailbox 11a within the mail platform 11, see PP 0038 and 0056. Again, SIP addresses may also be utilized as explicitly taught by Clift in PP 0043.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed with respect to Claims 1 and 4. The claimed “proxy server” may read on Messaging Application 6 which accesses database 7. In FIG. 2, messaging application 6 is provided as part of the Intelligent Network 5, and connected to database 7 containing caller profiles, PP 0038. The processor and the communication interface are inherent. Note that the messaging application interfaces, in part, with the intelligent network 5.
Claim 11 recites a user equipment which reads on device 2 of user A in Fig. 4. The claim recites a processor (inherent in device 2) in the user equipment which functions to:
generate a call set-up request comprising information indicating a request to record a voice message directly on a voicemail server serving the callee” (as discussed above, this reads on dialing a prefix to request the service), and
send said call set-up request to a proxy server (messaging application 6) in order to trigger, depending on direct-voicemail authorization data discriminated within callee status information retrieved by said proxy server, the setup of a communication session between the user equipment and a voicemail server serving the callee, to enable recording of said voice message (this limitation has been discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.).
Note: besides the service of the proxy server (messaging application 6) which is triggered, the claim basically recites a user equipment with a processor to generate a call-set request to trigger a service.
Regarding Claim 12, the “input element” may simply read on the dialing buttons shown in Fig. 2 and 4 for device 2 which enable the user to use to input a prefix to trigger the service, as discussed above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clift as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McLarty et al (US 20070041550 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Clift teaches that the proxy server (Messaging Application 6) may utilize Session Initiation Protocol (“the messaging application consults the contents of database 7 to determine whether this caller is allowed direct access to the mailbox of user B ….. it is understood that any other suitable identification criteria associated with the users or the devices which they use could be stored instead (for example, if needed to support other network types), such as ….. SIP (session initiation protocol) addresses”, see PP 0043.
The use of SIP, and the INVITE message is notoriously well-known in the art and has been available as an advantageous option. SIP has been used since the 1990s. Also, see applicant’s Fig. 1 which shows SIP messaging as prior art. For example, in a similar filed of endeavor, McLarty teaches (PP 0043) that a caller may enter an option to directly enter voice mail of the call receiver instead of attempting to reach the call receiver, and it teaches the use of the well-known SIP and INVITE. Again, this is an old, well-known, available and advantageous protocol which is provided as option by Clift. One of ordinary skill in the art would use this available and well-known option/choice.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clift in view of McLarty as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sinha (US 20220166751 A1).
The combination of Clift and McLarty, as discussed above, teaches the use of the SIP to provide the direct voice mail message features. The combination does not specifically teach the use of the header of the INVITE to indicate the request for the service.
Clift does suggest the use of SIP, and numerous references such as Sinah teach the use of the header of the INVITE message to request a service. This is well-known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of this application to use the header of the INVITE message of the SIP to request the direct voice message recording. This is using an available and well-known protocol which is suggested by Clift. Using/choosing an available and well-known protocol makes the features easy to incorporate in the network.
Claims 11 and 12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clift as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rothschild (US 20170359458 A1).
As discussed above, Clift teaches the use of user device 2 to generate a call set-up request to record a voice message directly on a voicemail server of the callee and teaches enabling the caller to record a voice message depending on the authorization data in the callee status.
Clift does not explicitly teach that the user device 2 comprises a processor.
Rothschild teaches downloading and installing an application on a mobile/smart phone 202 to enable options. The smart phone 202 comprises a processor 206, input/output 204 for the user to provide input. In PP 0001, it teaches that a user can preset a single button to speed dial a series of individual numbers. Thus, it would have been obvious to use such a smart phone to access the service provided by Clift since smart phones, which are widely available, are more user-friendly than conventional phones. The user may use the smart phone to enter the prefix and telephone number, as taught by Clift, or may use speed dialing, as an option, to store the prefix and the telephone number under one single button. The use of a smart phone may provide added convenience, efficiency and ease of use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, it appears that Applicant is focusing on the embodiment of Clift that is directed to the use of telephone number and prefix, and relies on the LEC (what applicant refers to as variant A). As discussed above and repeated below, Clift explicitly suggests the use of the old and notoriously well-known SIP (Session initiation protocol) and explicitly teaches that the messaging application 6 (which is read as the claimed “proxy server”) can be part of the intelligent network and can perform the claimed steps
PP 38, Clift, “The Local Exchanges such as 3 and 4 operate to perform all the basic call processes associated with setting up a connection between different devices connected to the PSTN network, and in order to provide additional functionality, pass the control at appropriate times to service control points, SCP (not shown) in Intelligent Network 5. In the specific arrangement illustrated in FIG. 2, a messaging application 6 is provided as part of the Intelligent Network, and connected to database 7 containing caller profiles.”. Thus Applicant’s arguments regarding the LEC seem to ignore the teaching that “control” is passed from LEC 3 and LEC4 to the intelligent network which includes the messaging application. One of the examiner’s interpretations read the claimed “proxy server” as the messaging application and the IN.
PP 40, Clift, “this CLI is relayed to the Intelligent Network together with an indication that this caller is requesting direct access to a mailbox. The Intelligent Network messaging application stores the CLI for calling party A for later use.”
PP 41, Clift, “in step S5, control has been passed to the Intelligent Network, in which the IN-messaging application 6 compares the identity of the calling party with the CLI recorded earlier, to determine whether this caller has requested direct access to the mailbox. If so, then at step S6, the messaging application consults the contents of database 7 to determine whether this caller is allowed direct access to the mailbox of user B.” Thus, the comparison, determination and “permission” are all performed by the IN-messaging application.
PP 44, Clift, “If the messaging application 6 determines by consulting database 7 that user A is allowed direct access to the mailbox of user B, then at step S7 the IN-messaging application redirects the call to the appropriate mail platform 11, and user A is allowed to leave a voicemail message in the mailbox 11a on the platform.” Again, the steps are performed by the IN-messaging application which is read as the claimed “proxy server”.
It must be noted that the “proxy server” which is recited in the preamble of the independent claims is a broad term that may read on an intermediary or gateway that processes requests, and it is noted that there are many types of “proxy servers” in the art. Applicant states on page 10 of the arguments that :
“A proxy (such as a SIP proxy, for example) typically sits inline in the signaling path, may stay involved for the duration of the session, and forwards, modifies, or routes call signaling dynamically.”
Applicant’s own arguments support the fact that a “proxy server” is a broad terms and may cover many items. Note the use of “such as”, “for example, “typically”, “may” in Applicant’s arguments. So, the claims and Applicant’s arguments refer to a board/generic “proxy server”.
Furthermore, Clit teaches [0045] If, when the database is consulted at step S6, it is determined that user A is not (at the present time) allowed direct access to the mailbox of user B, then the messaging application directs the call to an IVR (Interactive Voice Response) platform where, under the control of the Intelligent Network, an appropriate recorded message is played to indicate that "the service is not available", and the call is torn down.” Again, it is the messaging application in the IN which controls/directs the call.
From the above, it is clear that
The SIP proxy server (which is not explicitly recited the independent claims) has been known and widely used since the 1990s. Note that Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (Fig. 1) shows SIP/Proxy server 2 being used with voicemail server 4.
The feature of “direct voicemail access” is taught by the prior art of the record.
The claimed invention, as explained in details above, is taught or made obvious by the prior art. See additional cited prior art references below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ruiz (US 11070675 B1) discloses a “System, Device, And Method For Ringless Voicemail Delivery”, and explicitly teaches the use SIP server such as SIP Server 130a in Fig. 1. Ringless is the same as “direct voicemail message”.
Banda (US 20070211868 A1I) discloses "Integrated System Providing Proxy Voice Mail And Switching Functionality", see proxy voice mail server (PVMS).
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). Amended claims 2 and 3 are now rejected under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clift.
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 AHMAD F. MATAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7488. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5:30.
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.
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.
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693