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 (IDS) submitted on 8-8-2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is acknowledged by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over: claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 14, and 20 of US Patent No. 12,088,758.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited patent mentioned above discloses: ‘… receive first media recorded at a first device based on a disconnection of the first device from a multi-participant communication; and cause a recording of the multi-participant communication to include the first media and second media received from one or more second devices during the multi-participant communication...’ along with the other limitations of claims 1, 10, and 15 in the instant application.
Allowed claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 14, and 20 cited below in US Pat. No. 12,088,758 disclose the claimed invention in the pending claims:
Claim 1: A method, comprising: disconnecting, by a first client device, from a multi-participant communication; recording, by an agent at the first client device, first media based on the disconnection of the first client device from the multi-participant communication; and transmitting, from the first client device, the first media to a server device associated with the multi-participant communication to cause a recording of the multi-participant communication to include the first media and second media from one or more second client devices.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, wherein recording the first media based on the disconnection of the first client device from the multi-participant communication comprises: receiving, at the first client device from the server device, a request for the agent to record the first media based on the disconnection of the first client device from the multi-participant communication; and causing the agent to record the first media based on the request.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1, wherein the first media is inserted within a gap identified within the recording of the multi-participant communication.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein the first media includes at least one of audio content or video content.
Claim 9: A non-transitory computer readable storage device including program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: disconnecting, by a first client device, from a multi-participant communication; recording, by an agent at the first client device, first media based on the disconnection of the first client device from the multi-participant communication; and transmitting, from the first client device, the first media to a server device associated with the multi-participant communication to cause a recording of the multi-participant communication to include the first media and second media from one or more second client devices.
Claim 14: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: disconnect from a multi-participant communication; record, by an agent, first media based on the disconnection from the multi-participant communication; and transmit the first media to a server device associated with the multi-participant communication to cause a recording of the multi-participant communication to include the first media and second media from one or more client devices.
Claim 20: The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the multi-participant communication is one of a telephone call, a video conference, or a contact center engagement.
For these reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected. Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1. Claims 11-14 depend on claim 10. Claims 16-20 depend on claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LISA HASHEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights