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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 03/30/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0188648) in view of Pearson (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0243974).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 16, with respect to Figures 1-4, Khan teaches a system comprising:
a gateway [i.e., gateway node] (paragraphs 0048-0049) configured to receive a request from a public safety answering point, wherein the request is configured to initiate an emergency callback session with a user device in response to a failure [i.e., an error] occurring in an emergency session between the user device and the public safety answering point (abstract; fig.1, 4; paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0015, 0071, 0072);
a application server [i.e., home network node] configured to provide, upon an identity of the public safety answering point being verified, verification information about the request and the public safety answering point to the user device (fig.1, 4; paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0015, 0020, 0024- 0026, 0029-0030, 0067, 0071, 0072) (Note; since a caller display name of “PSAP operator”, the caller PSAP’s identity must be verified by the system and the callback information from the PSAP is the claimed “verification information” (see paragraphs 0029-0030).); and
a module deployed on a user device, the module comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions (paragraph 0066), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the module to display the verification information about the request on a user interface of the user device (abstract; paragraphs 0015, 0020, 0024-0026, 0030, 0066, 0067, 0071, 0072).
However, Khan does not specifically teach wherein during the emergency callback session, the instructions further cause the module to suppress one or more telephony services of the user device, the one or more telephony services including: placing the public safety answering point on hold, receiving a call waiting indication for an incoming call, receiving any new incoming calls, or initiating an outgoing call. Pearson teaches wherein during the emergency callback session, the instructions further cause the module to suppress one or more telephony services of the user device, the one or more telephony services including: placing the public safety answering point on hold, receiving a call waiting indication for an incoming call, receiving any new incoming calls, or initiating an outgoing call (fig.5, 6; paragraphs 0006, 0031-0034). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan to incorporate the feature of wherein during the emergency callback session, the instructions further cause the module to suppress one or more telephony services of the user device, the one or more telephony services including: placing the public safety answering point on hold, receiving a call waiting indication for an incoming call, receiving any new incoming calls, or initiating an outgoing call in Khan’s invention as taught by Pearson. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to ensure that customer safety is preserved while making advanced telephone features and capabilities available.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Khan teaches wherein the request comprises a priority header having a value of “psap-callback.” (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, Khan teaches wherein the verification information about the request comprises at least one of: a name of the public safety answering point, a reason for the request, an emergency logo, or one or more caller verification flags (paragraphs 0020, 0024- 0026, 0030, 0067).
Regarding claims 5, 15 and 20, Khan teaches wherein the home network node is configured to provide configuration information to initiate a first or second or third options [i.e., suppression of one or more telephony or supplementary services] during the emergency callback session (paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0015, 0020, 0024- 0026, 0030, 0067, 0071, 0072).
Regarding claim 6, Khan teaches wherein the one or more telephony services comprise at least one of: call waiting, call holding, call forwarding, call barring, or call transferring (paragraphs 0008, 0014, 0018-0020).
Regarding claim 7, Khan teaches wherein the one or more telephony services comprise an incoming call to the user device or an outgoing call from the user device (paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0015, 0020, 0024- 0026, 0030, 0067, 0071, 0072).
Regarding claim 8, Khan teaches wherein the configuration information indicates a time duration for the suppression of the one or more telephony services (paragraphs 0007, 0008, 0014, 0015, 0071).
Regarding claim 11, Khan teaches wherein the second request comprises verification information about the public safety answering point indicating that the public safety answering point is valid (paragraphs 0029-0030).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Khan teaches displaying, by the user device, verification information about the second request on a user interface of the user device (paragraphs 0029-0030).
Claims 2, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0188648) in view of Pearson (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0243974) further in view of Mardakis et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0203716).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 17, Khan in view of Pearson does not specifically teach wherein the identity of the public safety answering point is verified using a Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENS (SHAKEN) framework. Mardakis teaches wherein the identity of the public safety answering point is verified using a Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENS (SHAKEN) framework (paragraph 0036) (Note; since, the caller’s identity is verified using Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENS (SHAKEN) framework, therefore, when the PSAP makes a callback, it becomes a caller and its identity is verified by Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENS (SHAKEN) framework.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khan to incorporate the feature of wherein the identity of the public safety answering point is verified using a Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENS (SHAKEN) framework in Khan’s invention in view of Pearson’s invention as taught by Mardakis. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to make proper emergency call back using Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENS (SHAKEN) framework.
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 MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
May 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights