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 Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 4/3/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application. Examiner contacted Applicant on 5/1/2026 to expediate the case. As of this communication no call back has been received.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, 10 and 16, the limitation “a CTS application installed on the first electronic device of the first hearing impaired user, wherein the CTS application is configured to connect to a CTS provider to receive CTS“ in unclear because the CTS application receives the CTS from the provider but later in the claim the CTS is provided with the peer. It is not understood the how the CTS is provided based on the claims limitation configuration as is.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knighton (U.S. Patent App Pub 20150341486) in view of Gupta (U.S. Patent App Pub 20230007063) further in view of Patron (U.S. Patent App Pub 20200366789).
Regarding claim 1,
Knighton teaches a system for enabling captioned telephone service (“CTS”) to a business phone system, comprising: (See paragraphs 49, 50, fig. 5, Knighton)
a telephone for a phone call with the peer for supporting two-way communication with a headset, wherein the telephone itself does not provide CTS; (See paragraphs 43-45, fig. 5 Knighton teaches internet phone non-CTS)
a first adapter device which includes one or more of an RJ-9 port, a 3.5mm audio jack, a USB port, and a first Bluetooth transceiver for supporting two-way communication with the telephone; (See paragraphs 49, 50, fig. 5, Knighton teaches adaptive captioning server)
a first electronic device of a first hearing impaired user; and (See paragraphs 45-47, fig. 5 Knighton teaches a remote device suitable for hearing impaired)
a CTS application installed on the first electronic device of the first hearing impaired user, (See paragraphs 45, 53, 57, fig. 5 Knighton teaches internet phone non-CTS wherein the CTS application is configured to connect to a CTS provider to receive CTS,) (See paragraph 8-11,44, fig 3, Knighton teaches CTS app connected to CTS provider)
wherein the first adapter device further comprises a second Bluetooth transceiver, a WiFi transceiver, or a wired network transceiver, and (See paragraphs 45, 53, 57, fig. 5 Knighton teaches internet phone non-CTS)
wherein the first adapter device is constructed to connect to the CTS application of the first electronic device via Bluetooth connection, WiFi connection, or wired network connection. (See paragraphs 60, fig. 5 Knighton teaches wifi)
Knighton does not explicitly but Gupta teaches the telephone has has an RJ-9 port, a 3.5mm audio jack, a USB port, or a Bluetooth transceiver for supporting two-way communication with a headset (See paragraphs 22, 45, 37, Gupta)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Gupta with Knighton because both deal with closed captioning. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Gupta into Knighton is that Gupta teaches the method enables increasing productivity and efficiency by allowing individuals to discuss various topics and develop solutions for moving forward in respective roles and projects when collaboration occurs among people who are geographically separated and employees who work remotely, thus alleviating or minimizing requirement to physically discuss a topic discussed over a conference call, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], [0012], Gupta)
Knighton and Gupta do not explicitly teach but Patron teaches wherein upon establishing a connection between the telephone and the first adapter device, and a connection between the first adapter device and the CTS application of the first electronic device, the system is configured to enable the first hearing impaired user to conduct the phone call with the peer by providing CTS to the first hearing impaired user through the CTS application of the first electronic device. (See figures 1-2, paragraphs 38-41, Patron teaches a captioner and middleware for the CTS technology)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Patron with Knighton and Gupta because both deal with closed captioning. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Patron into Knighton and Gupta is that Patron teaches a method ensuring accuracy and understand of the conversation thus provide improved communication though captioned telephone services., therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], [0012], Patron)
Regarding claim 2,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1.
Gupta further teaches wherein the first adapter device includes a codec to convert analog signals from the RJ-9 port or the 3.5mm audio jack to digital signals and covert digital signals to analog signals for being sent to the RJ-9 port or the 3.5mm audio jack. (See paragraphs 61, 45, Gupta). See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1
Gupta teaches wherein the telephone provides call control capabilities, and the second Bluetooth transceiver and the CTS application are configured to support the call control capabilities.(See paragraphs 45-46, Gupta) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 3, wherein the call control capabilities include a one-button call control. (See paragraphs 45-47, fig. 5 Knighton)
Regarding claim 5,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to provide in-call audio streaming.(See paragraphs 38-39, Knighton)
Regarding claim 6,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1.
Gupta teaches further comprising a video conferencing device for a video conference with the peer, wherein the CTS application is configured to support video conferencing, and wherein the first adapter device is configured to connect the video conferencing device and the CTS application. .(See paragraphs 60, 55, Gupta) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Knighton and Gupta do not explicitly teach but Patron teaches wherein upon establishing a connection between the video conferencing device and the first adapter device, and a connection between the first adapter device and the CTS application of the first electronic device, the system is configured to enable the first hearing impaired user to conduct the video conference with the peer by providing CTS to the first hearing impaired user through the CTS application of the first electronic device. (See figures 1-2, paragraphs 25, 38-41, Patron teaches a captioner and middleware for the CTS technology) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1.
Gupta teaches further comprising a video conferencing device for a video conference with the peer and a second adapter device, wherein the CTS application is configured to support video conferencing, and wherein the second adapter device is configured to connect the video conferencing device and the CTS application. (See paragraphs 60, 55, Gupta) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Knighton and Gupta do not explicitly teach but Patron teaches wherein upon establishing a connection between the video conferencing device and the second adapter device, and aconnection between the second adapter device and the CTS application of the first electronic device, the system is configured to enable the first hearing impaired user to conduct the video conference with the peer by providing CTS to the first hearing impaired user through the CTS application of the first electronic device. (See figures 1-2, paragraphs 37-40, Patron teaches a captioner and middleware for the CTS technology) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1, further comprising a second electronic device of a second hearing impaired user, wherein the CTS application is installed on the second electronic device of the second hearing impaired user, and wherein the first adapter device is constructed to connect to the CTS application of the second electronic device via Bluetooth connection, WiFi connection, or wired network connection. (See paragraphs 60, fig. 5 Knighton teaches wifi)
Regarding claim 9,
Knighton and Gupta teach the system of claim 1.
Gupta teaches wherein the second Bluetooth transceiver is configured to emit periodic Bluetooth “Beacon” messages. (See paragraphs 60, 55, Gupta) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Knighton and Gupta do not explicitly teach but Patron teaches wherein upon establishing a connection between the telephone and the first adapter device, and a connection between the first adapter device and the CTS application of the second electronic device, the system is configured to enable the second hearing impaired user to conduct the phone call with the peer by providing CTS to the second hearing impaired user through the CTS application of the second electronic device. (See figures 1-2, paragraphs 38-41, Patron teaches a captioner and middleware for the CTS technology) See motivation to combine for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10,
Knighton teaches a adapter device for enabling CTS to a business phone system, comprising (See paragraphs 43-45, fig. 5 Knighton teaches internet phone non-CTS)
wherein the adapter device further includes a second Bluetooth transceiver, a WiFi transceiver, or a wired network transceiver, wherein the adapter device is constructed to connect to a telephone for a phone call with a peer , (See paragraphs 49, 50, fig. 5, Knighton teaches adaptive captioning server wifi)
wherein the adapter device is constructed to connect to a CTS application of an electronic device for a hearing impaired user via Bluetooth connection, WiFi connection, or wired network connection. (See paragraphs 60, fig. 5 Knighton teaches wifi)
wherein the CTS application is configured to connect to a CTS provider to receive CTS (See paragraph 8-11, 44,fig 3, Knighton teaches CTS app connected to CTS provider)
Knighton does not explicitly but Gupta teaches the telephone has an RJ-9 port, a 3.5mm audio jack, a USB port, or a Bluetooth transceiver for supporting two-way communication with a headset and an adapter device which has which has an RJ-9 port, a 3.5mm audio jack, a USB port, or a Bluetooth transceiver for supporting two-way communication with a headset, via the 3.5mm audio jack, the USB port, or the first Bluetooth transceiver of the adapter device (See paragraphs 22, 45, 37, Gupta)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Gupta with Knighton because both deal with closed captioning. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Gupta into Knighton is that Gupta the method enables increasing productivity and efficiency by allowing individuals to discuss various topics and develop solutions for moving forward in respective roles and projects when collaboration occurs among people who are geographically separated and employees who work remotely, thus alleviating or minimizing requirement to physically discuss a topic discussed over a conference call, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], [0012], Gupta)
Knighton and Gupta do not explicitly teach but Patron teaches wherein upon establishing a connection between the telephone and the first adapter device, and a connection between the first adapter device and the CTS application of the first electronic device, the system is configured to enable the hearing impaired user to conduct the phone call with the peer by providing CTS to the hearing impaired user through the CTS application of the first electronic device. (See figures 1-2, paragraphs 38-41, Patron teaches a captioner and middleware for the CTS technology)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Patron with Knighton and Gupta because both deal with closed captioning. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Patron into Knighton and Gupta is that Patron teaches a method ensuring accuracy and understand of the conversation thus provide improved communication though captioned telephone services., therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], [0012], Patron)
Claims 11-15 list all the same elements of claims 2-4, 7, 9, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 11-15 applies equally as well to claims 2-4, 7, 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: “Thus, Knighton's internet phone is specifically configured to receive and display captioned telephone service (CTS) output. Accordingly, Knighton does not teach or disclose a non-CTS business phone, as required by the claimed invention. The Office further stated that "Gupta teaches the telephone has an RJ-9 port, a 3.5mm audio jack, a USB port, or a Bluetooth transceiver for supporting two-way
communication with a headset (See paragraphs 22, 45, 37, Gupta)." However, Gupta does not disclose these specific interfaces, nor does it describe the claimed headset connectivity arrangement. Therefore, the Examiner's reliance on Gupta for these features is unsupported. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Knighton, Gupta, and Patron to arrive at the claimed invention. The cited references are directed to fundamentally different system architectures and use cases, and the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale for their combination. Moreover, the claimed invention provides unexpected advantages, including improved
privacy, enhanced security isolation, and flexible user access, which are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references. These benefits further underscore the non-obviousness of the claimed invention and render the proposed combination improper.”
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to at least paragraph 44 of Knighton. This section teaches In some embodiments, the adaptive captioning service 501 may also connect to conventional CTS phones 502b, which communicate with the adaptive captioning service 501 over the PSTN 503b. As will become clear hereinafter as the adaptive captioning service 501 is discussed in greater detail, the adaptive captioning service 501 can be configured to provide automated text captioning to these conventional CTS phones 502b, and can thus enhance the user experience for a great multitude of CTS users without requiring any change of hardware on the part of the CTS users. As discussed hereinafter, however, when coupled to the adaptive captioning service 501, Internet phones 502a can provide novel enhanced progressive caption display capabilities—and thus a much richer user experience—as compared to conventional CTS phones 502b. For example, Internet phones 502a may be configured to visually convey non-verbal cues (e.g., emotion, sarcasm, humor), to modify text captions in real-time as speech recognition improves, etc., whereas CTS phones 502b may be incapable of such rich features. This section teaches non-cts internet phone. This phone is different than the cts phones in figure 5 of Knighton.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Gupta with Knighton because both deal with closed captioning. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Gupta into Knighton is that Gupta teaches the method enables increasing productivity and efficiency by allowing individuals to discuss various topics and develop solutions for moving forward in respective roles and projects when collaboration occurs among people who are geographically separated and employees who work remotely, thus alleviating or minimizing requirement to physically discuss a topic discussed over a conference call, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], [0012], Gupta) Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Patron with Knighton and Gupta because both deal with closed captioning. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Patron into Knighton and Gupta is that Patron teaches a method ensuring accuracy and understand of the conversation thus provide improved communication though captioned telephone services., therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0004] - [0006], [0012], Patron)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Behm, U.S. Patent App 20210243298, teaches the method involves initiating a communication connection between an initiating device and a receiving device of a second user by a first user. The initiating and receiving devices are checked for accessible features. The initiating communication device includes a profile of the first user, which contains multiple settings. The each setting is associated with a different universal communication attribute, which provides specific functions of data routed from the first user to a server associated with a service provider for each setting. The first user is chosen communication attribute. The first user is chosen the service provider from multiple service providers through which the communication attribute is provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights