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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 7/22/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0279684 Chen in view of US 2013/0279684 (Gregorek) in view of US 2014/0328478 (Chen et al., herein referred to as Chen2).
As to claims 1, 10 and 19, Chen teaches an electronic device (system including terminal 10 and various network elements needed to perform the cited operations), comprising a processor (12, fig 10), a memory (122, fig 10), and a program or instructions stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform:
obtaining, when calling party information corresponding to an incoming call request does not exist in a preset contact list, a multimedia notification file based on label information corresponding to the calling party information (see paragraphs 54, 163 and 164, contact identifier~calling party information, contact group identifier~label); and
playing the multimedia notification file on a display screen (see paragraph 59);
wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform: when the calling party information corresponding to the incoming call request does not exist in the preset contact list, and the label information is a preset first label, obtaining, a first multimedia notification file corresponding to the preset first label; and the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform: playing the first multimedia notification file in a first display area on the display screen (see paragraphs 79 and 89 and figure 1).
What is lacking from Chen is obtaining, from a cloud server, the first multimedia notification file corresponding to the preset first label.
In analogous art, Gregorek teaches a similar process in which multimedia files used for call notification on a called party device may be stored on the called party device or on cloud storage accessible to the called party device (see Gregorek, paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chen so as to reduce the memory demand on the called party device.
What is further lacking from Chen wherein the preset first label is a fraud label, an extortion label, or an intimidation label.
In analogous art, Chen2 teaches establishing a preset label of “harassment type” (~intimidation label) for a telephone number of an incoming call (see Chen2, paragraph 54 and figures 2 and 3). In combination with Chen, this would render establishing a group identifier for telephone numbers labelled as harassment type, and performing the subsequent steps of obtaining a multimedia file and displaying it accordingly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chen so as to inform the callee of a potentially undesirable call.
As to claims 3, 12 and 21, Chen further teaches wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to further perform: displaying a call rejection control in a second display area on the display screen; and ending a call when a target input for the call rejection control is received (see paragraph 171).
As to claims 4, 13 and 22, what is lacking from Chen is wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform: when the calling party information corresponding to the incoming call request does not exist in the preset contact list, and the label information is blank, obtaining a second multimedia notification file from a cloud server.
In analogous art, Gregorek teaches a called party device using a default media file, which may be access from cloud storage, when there is no prestored association between an incoming call and multimedia files to be played for notification of said call (see Gregorek, paragraphs 26, 30 and 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chen so as to ensure some customizable action always be taken for incoming calls.
Claims 5-6, 14-15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Gregorek and Chen2 as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of US 2022/0345570 (Garg et al.).
As to claims 5 and 14, what is further lacking from Chen in view of Gregorek is wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to further perform: recording content/voice of a call corresponding to the incoming call request, to obtain call audio; performing speech recognition on the call audio during the recording or after the recording is ended, to obtain a recognition result; and when the recognition result comprises sensitive information, outputting prompt information.
In analogous art, Garg teaches a call screening process, which may be implemented by the called device, recording voice of an incoming call and implementing speech recognition to determine how to screen the call, and outputting prompt information to the called party accordingly (see Garg, paragraphs 77-83 and figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chen so as to better screen calls from undesired callers.
As to claims 6 and 15, Chen in view of Garg’s cited teachings further teach wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to further perform: receiving a first input from a user; and performing target processing in response to the first input, wherein the target processing comprises at least one of following: ending a call or deleting the call audio (see Chen, figure 1, and Garg, figure 1, element 152).
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Gregorek and Chen2 as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 2015/0347630 (Li).
As to claims 7 and 16, what is lacking from Chen is wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform: obtaining, when the calling party information corresponding to the incoming call request does not exist in the preset contact list, and the label information is a preset second label, target content information corresponding to the preset second label; and obtaining a third multimedia notification file based on the target content information, wherein the third multimedia notification file is used to display the target content information.
In an analogous art, Li teaches a similar process in which a called device identifies a user ID for an application associated with an incoming call (~preset label information), and obtains order information (~target content information) in the form of a multimedia notification file from a server (see Li, paragraphs 29-37). Note that this process in combination with Chen would occur even when the caller ID was not preset in the called device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chen so as to provide the caller with important information pertaining to a pending order.
As to claims 8 and 17, Li’s cited teachings further teach wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform: when the calling party information corresponding to the incoming call request does not exist in the preset contact list, and the label information is a take-out label or a courier label, obtaining order information corresponding to the take-out label or the courier label; and the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform: generating the third multimedia notification file based on the order information, to obtain the third multimedia notification file, wherein the third multimedia notification file is used to display the order information (see Li, paragraphs 29-37). Note that this process in combination with Chen would occur even when the caller ID was not preset in the called device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chen so as to provide the caller with important information pertaining to a pending order.
As to claims 9 and 18, Chen further teaches wherein the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to perform any one of following: sending the third multimedia notification file to a cloud server; and locally storing the third multimedia notification file (see paragraph 89).
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights