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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 05/22/2026 and 08/18/2026, have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment submitted on June 29, 2026.
Claims, 21-40 are now currently pending in the present application.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-24, 26-31, 33-38, and 40 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Arestani et al. (US 9392523 B1, hereinafter Arestani) in view of Massie et al. (US 10868910 B1, hereinafter Massie).
Consider Claim 21, Arestani discloses a method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising:
receiving a communication request via a wireless connection, wherein the communication request indicates a position of a telephone call and a device ID of another an electronic device. (Abstract, the device may receive a voice call from the second communication device. The device may determine call information associated with the voice call; Col 7 line 15-17, call transfer device 250 may be permitted access to the wireless communication if call transfer device 250 is determined to be an authorized device by using a security mechanism (e.g., pairing) by user device 230. Col 8 Lines 12-14, additionally, or alternatively, call transfer device 250 may receive control data or a feature set (e.g., identification information, bandwidth information, noise cancelling parameters, call profile information, etc.) for call reception device 270).
determining whether the device ID matches a predetermined device ID; and (Column 12 line 1-6, the call path selection history may identify specific preferences of the user of call transfer device 250, when selecting the call path (e.g., the user selects all voice calls received between 12:00 PM and 4 PM to be relayed to the speaker; the user selects a greater quantity of voice calls from ‘Mom’ to be relayed to call reception device 270. Col 7 line 14-18, call transfer device 250 may be permitted access to the wireless communication if call transfer device 250 is determined to be an authorized device by using a security mechanism (e.g., pairing) by call reception device 270. Pairing is done with an encryption key).
transmitting, via the wireless connection, a communication response to the communication request, the communication response including audio of the telephone call. (Column 7 & 8 line 65-67 & 1-3, call transfer device 250 may establish wireless communication after determining that pairing between call transfer device 250 and call reception device 270 was successful, thereby allowing communication between call transfer device 250 and call reception device 270. In some implementations, call transfer device 250 may receive a notification (e.g., a message on a user interface of call transfer device 250, an audible alert, etc.) that the pairing was successful).
Arestani discloses the claim invention but fail to teach the computing device associated with a public safety answering point (PSAP).
However, Massie teaches the computing device associated with a public safety answering point (PSAP) (column 3 line 25-28, a call management system having a call transcription supervisory monitoring interactive dashboard of incoming calls at a command center includes: an electronic computing device. Column 2 line 46- 48, the number of audio and/or video calls routed to a particular command center (sometimes referred to as a public safety answering point (PSAP))).
Massie teaches a position ID of a calltaker position at the PSAP, the position ID identifying a workspace of a calltaker (column 7 line 56 to column 8 line 3, the monitoring computer 205 may perform substantially real-time (e.g., as the call occurs, and not as a post-process event after the call ends) text transcription on the calls, appropriately tagging portions of the transcript between audio originating from the workstations 210 (call-takers) and audio communications originating from the communication devices 105 (callers), uniquely identifying the call (by call source identifier, or other uniquely assigned identifier) and uniquely identifying the call-taker assigned to the call (by workstation identifier, such as MAC address, or user ID of the call taker, among other possibilities), and store the text transcription at a storage included within the monitoring computer 205 or at a communicatively coupled storage 207, among other possibilities).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify by incorporating the method involving establishing a call between a portable network device and a public service answering point (PSAP) of Arestani with the method for managing a call system, involving receiving incoming calls at an electronic computing device of Massie. The motivation to do so would be to develop a method that would involve receiving a communication request through a wireless connection, where the communication request indicates a position of a telephone call. Thereby, allowing a user to maintain a better view of the content and issues across incoming calls and prevents call turnover or short calls.
Consider Claim 22, Arestani discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
receiving a headset registration request identifying a device ID of a headset, wherein the communication response is transmitted at least in part based on the device ID of the headset. (Column 1 line 46-51, a user may utilize short-range wireless communication technology to receive a voice call on a user device (e.g., a mobile device) and forward the voice call to a headset (e.g., a Bluetooth headset) that the user is wearing, allowing the user to receive the voice call in a public place).
Consider Claim 23, Arestani discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
determining whether a login at the computing device was authenticated, wherein the transmitting is at least in part based on the determining that the login was authenticated. (Column 7 line 16-19, call transfer device 250 may be permitted access to the wireless communication if call transfer device 250 is determined to be an authorized device by using a security mechanism (e.g., pairing) by call reception device 270. Pairing is done with an encryption key).
Consider Claim 24, Arestani discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
receiving a voice input via the wireless connection; and (column 8 line 40-47, call transfer device 250 may be configured to automatically add user device 230 for the wireless communication (e.g., call transfer device 250 may be configured to receive the request when call transfer device 250 and/or user device 230 is powered on). A user of call transfer device 250 may select an option using the input mechanism provided on the user interface of call transfer device 250 to add user device 230 for the wireless communication; Col 5 Lines 20-21 user input (e.g., a touch screen display, a keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, a button, a switch, a microphone, etc.).
applying the voice input to the telephone call. (Column 14 line 50-54, if the call information matches the stored call information, call transfer device 250 may enable the user of call transfer device 250 to establish the call path for the voice call using the user input mechanism, provided on the user interface of call transfer device 250).
Consider Claim 26, Arestani discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
receiving an indication of an action via the wireless connection; and (Column 17 line 29-35, if the call information matches the stored call information, call transfer device 250 may enable the user of call transfer device 250 to establish the call path for the voice call using the user input mechanism, provided on the user interface of call transfer device 250).
performing the action on the telephone call. (Column 2 line 26-34, FIG. 1A, assume a user device (e.g., a mobile phone) is connected, using short-range wireless communication technology. Assume that the call transfer device has a modem and voice calls may be received either by the user device and then forwarded to the call transfer device or by the call transfer device. As shown in FIG. 1A, without an alternate call path included in the call transfer device, packets associated with the voice calls received by the user device).
Consider Claim 27, Arestani discloses the method of Claim 21, further comprising:
receiving a registration request indicating the predetermined device ID. (Column 12 line 1-6, the call path(previously associated with the stored call information) selection history may identify specific preferences of the user of call transfer device 250, when selecting the call path (e.g., the user selects all voice calls received between 12:00 PM and 4 PM to be relayed to the speaker; the user selects a greater quantity of voice calls from ‘Mom’ to be relayed to call reception device 270).
As for claim 28, claim 28 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 21 and is rejected along the same rationale (“a network interface” Arestani column 5 line 40, a cellular network interface ; “a processor” Massie column 4 line 64-66, these computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer).
As for claim 29, limitation of parent claim 28 have been discussed above. Claim 29 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 22 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 30, limitation of parent claim 28 have been discussed above. Claim 30 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 23 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 31, limitation of parent claim 28 have been discussed above. Claim 31 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 24 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 33, limitation of parent claim 28 have been discussed above. Claim 33 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 26 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 34, limitation of parent claim 28 have been discussed above. Claim 34 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 27 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 35, claim 35 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 21 and is rejected along the same rationale (“a computer readable medium” Arestani column 5 line 46, A computer-readable medium; “a processor” Massie column 4 line 64-66, these computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer).
As for claim 36, limitations of parent 35 claim have been discussed above. Claim 36 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 22 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 37, limitations of parent 35 claim have been discussed above. Claim 37 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 23 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 38, limitations of parent 35 claim have been discussed above. Claim 38 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 24 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 40, limitations of parent 35 claim have been discussed above. Claim 40 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 26 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Arestani et al. (US 9392523 B1, hereinafter Arestani) in view of Massie et al. (US 10868910 B1, hereinafter Massie) in view of Agarwal et al. (US 20210281682 A1, hereinafter Agarwal).
Consider Claim 25, Arestani discloses the claimed invention noted above but fails teach receiving an indication of a numeric input via the wireless connection, wherein a dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tone is generated, at least in part based on the numeric input.
However, Agarwal teaches receiving an indication of a numeric input via the wireless connection, wherein a dual-tone multi-frequency (DTMF) tone is generated, at least in part based on the numeric input ( paragraph 0071, IVR component 108 may generate audio data using the user input, such as by producing DTMF tones or a recorded or synthesized voice representative of the portion(s) of the user input. The audio data may then be provided to IVR system 146, which may receive the audio data in the same manner that DTMF tone. Paragraph 0003, to reach the IVR system, callers must dial a telephone number provided by a business they are trying to reach and then get connected to an IVR system that plays pre-recorded voice menus to the callers).
Agarwal discloses applying the DTMF tone to the telephone call ( Paragraph 0024, an IVR system may audibly instruct a user to press a certain dual tone multi-frequency (DTMF, or “touch tone”) button on a telephone or speak a verbal command (e.g., into the microphone of a telephone) to indicate a preferred spoken language for the duration of the communication).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify claim 25, by Arestani method involving establishing a call between a portable network device and a public service answering point (PSAP) with Massie method for managing a call system, involving receiving incoming calls at an electronic computing device and the method for providing visual representation of Interactive Voice Response (IVR) System of Agarwal. The motivation to do so would be to develop a method that would involve receiving a communication request through a wireless connection, where the communication request indicates a position of a telephone call. Thereby, creating a wireless communication devices that are secure, low power, and inexpensive way of connecting and exchanging information between the devices.
As for claim 32, limitation of parent claim 28 have been discussed above. Claim 32 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 25 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 39, limitations of parent 35 claim have been discussed above. Claim 39 reflects the method comprising computer executable instructions for implementing the article of manufacture as claimed in claim 25 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed June 29, 2026, with respect to independent claims 21, 28 and 35 have been fully considered.
With regards to claim 35-40 Examiner respectfully withdraw rejection under 35 USC § 101 due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 35-40.
In view of Applicants arguments (page 9 and 10) of the amended claims and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendments is made in view of new prior art Massie as presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims are therefore moot.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 5:00 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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights