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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 9 – 15 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3 , 7 – 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0215163 (Kashen et al.)
With respect to claims 1 and 16
A computer-implemented method for alerting an incoming call, comprising: receiving, by a callee device, a call session request to initiating the incoming call; (see the Abstract and paragraph 0003) when a silent mode and an exception operation to the silent mode are both active in the callee device (see paragraph 0036). The “override” option is equated to the exception and the “do-not-disturb” mode is equated to the silent mode are implicit active according to paragraph 0036)
determining, by the callee device, a caller number as a trusted partner caller
number; (see paragraph 0007. The “whitelist is equated to the trusted caller)
determining, by the callee device, based on the call session request, the
incoming call as a priority call from the caller number, wherein the priority call represents a type of call as specified in the call session request, and the caller number identifies an origination of the incoming call; (see paragraphs 0016, 0020 and 0066) and
generating, by the callee device, based on the caller number being the trusted
partner caller number and the incoming call being the priority call from the caller number, an alert, wherein the alert overrides the silent mode as the exception operation to the silent mode to inform a user of the callee device about the incoming call. (see paragraph 0016
With respect to claim 16, claim 16 mirrors claim 1 and would be rejected in a like manner.
With respect to claims 2 and 17, see paragraph 0015, where defining the whitelist is equated to adding to the trusted partner information. The activation of the silent mode is implicit, else the silent mode override service described in Kashen et al. makes no sense.
With respect to claims 3 and 18, note paragraph 0066.
With respect to claim 7, note paragraph 0037.
With respect to claim 8, note paragraph 0036.
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.
Claim(s) 4 - 5 and 19 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2010/0215163 (Kashen et al.).
With respect to claims 4 and 19, SIP INVITE is well known to be part of caller identification and SIP INVITE is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated SIP INVITE wherever and whenever it was deemed necessary.
With respect to claims 5 and 20, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have incorporate such a well known 5G network into Kashen et al. as such would only entail the substitution of one well known network for another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs. of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 - 272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571-272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 272-7484.
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 PAIR system, see https://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).
07Feb2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights