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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a communication processing unit configured to … (claim 6)
a mode control unit configured to … (claim 6)
a service execution unit configured to … (claim 6)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 - 4, 6 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20210060906A (which has been provided in the International Search Report. See attached English translations for paragraph numbers cited).
Regarding claim 1, KR20210060906A discloses a method of providing an on-screen automatic response service (ARS) through a voice call auto-reply ([0008] – [0009]; [0026]; [0072]), the method comprising:
receiving a voice call from a mobile terminal ([0064]);
checking whether a software development kit (SDK), which is necessary to execute program location information (URL) for providing an automatic response service (ARS) on the mobile terminal directly without user intervention, is installed ([0072]);
and executing the program location information (URL) directly without user intervention to provide the ARS or providing the program location information (URL) to the mobile terminal and providing the ARS according to an execution command for the program location information (URL) received from a user depending on whether the SDK is installed ([0073]; [0075]; wherein URL would be inherent in web browser; [0049]).
Regarding claim 2, KR20210060906A discloses wherein when the SDK is installed on the mobile terminal, the ARS is provided by allowing the program location information (URL) to be automatically executed on a browser using automatic pop-up ([0079]; [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, KR20210060906A discloses wherein when the SDK is not installed on the mobile terminal, the program location information (URL) is sent to the mobile terminal in the form of a text message and is allowed to be executed on a browser to provide the ARS when the user clicks the program location information (URL) ([0075]; [0083] discloses receiving text message).
Regarding claim 4, KR20210060906A discloses wherein the ARS is implemented as an app for a smartphone, and the app provides an auto pop-up command and auto pop-up information ([0036]; [0073]; wherein pop-up would be equivalent to displayed on the screen).
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 6 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Claim 6 additionally recites a server with various units. Server is disclosed by KR20210060906A ([0018] discloses service server 140; units are inherent since the functions are performed as in claim 1).
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20210060906A in view of KR102047497B1 (which has been provided in the International Search Report. See attached English translations for paragraph numbers cited).
Regarding claim 5, KR20210060906A does not disclose the step of checking whether the SDK is installed on the mobile terminal comprises: transmitting a command to the mobile terminal that starts the SDK installed on the mobile terminal, and confirming that the SDK is installed on the mobile terminal if a response to the command is received.
In the same field of endeavor, however, KR102047497B1 discloses:
the step of checking whether the SDK is installed on the mobile terminal comprises: transmitting a command to the mobile terminal that starts the SDK installed on the mobile terminal, and confirming that the SDK is installed on the mobile terminal if a response to the command is received ([0059] - [0060] discloses whether a predetermined application is installed on a device; wherein the SDK application is interpreted as the predetermined application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by KR102047497B1, in the system of KR20210060906A because confirmation of whether the SDK is installed would allow for automatic responses to calls, thereby bypassing the user. SDK on the phone has further advantages of enhancing security and allowing it to function when there is no network available.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to how mobile devices handle calls:
Kim et al. (US 20160080558 A1) discloses electronic device and method for displaying phone call content.
Kim et al. (US 20140155039 A1) discloses mobile terminal and method for receiving an incoming call.
Kim (US 8693997 B2) discloses Visual ARS Service System and Method Enabled by Mobile Terminal's Call Control Function.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632