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 .
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.
Claims 1-9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitnis (US 8582745) in view of Vendrow (US 11,013042).
Regarding claim 1, Chitnis teaches, a method (abstract: device detects that a first user device is calling a second user device while the second user device is calling the first user device, and sends a notification to the first user device or the second user device indicating that the first user device and the second user device are calling one another. The device receives a response to the notification indicating that the first user device and the second user device are to be connected for a call, designates the first user device or the second user device as a call originator, and connects the first user device and the second user device for the call) comprising:
detecting a first communication request from a first caller device to a second caller device (Col. 1, lines 36-38: first user of a first user device, such as a cellular phone, a smart phone, or a landline telephone, may use the first user device to call a second user of a second user device),
detecting a second communication request from the second caller device to the first caller device (Col. 1, lines 36-44: first user of a first user device, such as a cellular phone, a smart phone, or a landline telephone, may use the first user device to call a second user of a second user device at the same time that the second user is attempting to call the first user. When two or more user devices attempt to call each other at the same time), and wherein the first communication request and the second communication request both occur within a threshold time period (col. 4, lines 42-60: Based on receiving the first and second requests, switching device 230 may determine that a time period between receiving the first request and the second request satisfies a threshold (e.g., the first request and the second request are received within a particular time period). Based on the time period satisfying the threshold, switching device 230 may determine that the first user device 210 is calling the second user device 210 while the second user device 210 is calling the first user device); and
establishing, without additional input from the first caller device and the second caller device, an active session in response to the first and second communication requests (Fig. 6B and Col. 10, lines 4-20).
Chitnis does not teach wherein the first communication and the second communication requests initiated over a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform as claimed.
Vendrow teaches initiate communication requests using unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform (abstract and Col. 8, Lines 35-42: The communication management server 150 uses this additional information to request the creation of the account with the UCaaS service provider for the initiator {which is reads on “wherein the first communication and the second communication requests initiated over a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitnis with Vendrow in order to improve the system by improving the collaboration, support hybrid work, scale more easily, and reduce the complexity of managing separate tools.
Regarding claim 2, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, selecting a modality of the active session based on a modality of the first caller device in the first communication request (Chitnis: Col. 4, lines 19-20: an indication of a type of call (e.g., voice or video)).
Regarding claim 3, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, the active session according to a configuration setting associated with the first caller device, wherein the configuration setting comprises at least one of recording settings or time-limit settings (Vendrow: Col. 10, lines 66-67).
Regarding claim 4, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, wherein the active session comprises at least one of a voice call, a video call, an audio conference, or a video conference (Chitnis: Col. 2, lines 15-20: User device 210 may include a device capable of making and/or receiving calls (e.g., voice and/or video calls). For example, user device 210 may include a mobile phone (e.g., a smart phone, a radiotelephone, etc.), a landline telephone (e.g., a payphone, a home telephone, etc.), a computing device (e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a handheld computer, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, wherein the first caller device and the second caller device are notified of the active session at approximately a same time (Chitnis: in FIG. 4, process 400 may include sending a notification to the first user device and/or the second user device, based on the detection (block 420). For example, switching device 230 may send a notification to the first user device 210 and/or the second user device 210, indicating that the first user device 210 is attempting to call the second user device 210, and/or indicating that the second user device 210 is attempting to call the first user device 210 (e.g., indicating that the first and second user devices 210 are attempting to call one another).
Regarding claim 6, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, wherein the first communication request is detected before the second communication request (Chitnis: Fig. 4, el. 410: process 400 may include detecting that a first user device is calling a second user device while the second user device is calling the first user device (block 410). For example, switching device 230 may receive input indicating that a first user device 210 is attempting to call a second user device 210, and may receive coincident input indicating that the second user device 210 is attempting to call the first user device 210).
Regarding claim 7, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, wherein the first communication request is identified, from a set of communication requests comprising the first communication request and the second communication request, based on at least one of: a timing of communication requests in the set (Col. 4, lines 47-58: Based on receiving the first and second requests, switching device 230 may determine that a time period between receiving the first request and the second request satisfies a threshold (e.g., the first request and the second request are received within a particular time period). Based on the time period satisfying the threshold, switching device 230 may determine that the first user device 210 is calling the second user device 210 while the second user device 210 is calling the first user device 210), a status associated with each device initiating one of the communication requests in the set, a signal quality associated with each device initiating one of the communication requests in the set, a complexity of settings associated with each device initiating one of the communication requests in the set, an indication that a user a device initiating one of the communication requests in the set created a calendar event associated with the active session, or a device type of each device initiating one of the communication requests in the set.
Regarding claim 8, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, wherein establishing the active session comprises: notifying the first caller device of acceptance of the first communication request; and merging the second communication request into the active session (Chitnis: Fig. 4, el.420-450: sending a notification to the first user device and/or the second user device, and connect the call).
Regarding claim 9, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, dismissing the second communication request in response to establishing the active call (Chitnis: Col. 10, lines 10-20: decide the originator of the call, and connect the call).
Regarding claim 11, see claim 1 rejection and (Fig. 3, el. 320 processor and 330 memory).
Regarding claim 12, see claim 3 rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 4 rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 5 rejections.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 6 rejections.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 7 rejections.
Regarding claim 17, see claim 8 rejections.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 2 rejections.
Regarding claim 20, see claim 3 rejections.
Claims 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chitnis (US 8582745) in view of Vendrow (US 11,013042) in view of Shekh-Yusef (US 20200066133).
Regarding claim 10, Chitnis in view of Vendrow teaches, the claimed method.
Chitnis in view of Vendrow does not teach using configuration setting rules to determine which configuration settings associated with each of the first caller device and the second caller device are applied to the active session.
Shekh-Yusef teaches using configuration setting rules to determine which configuration settings associated with each of the first caller device and the second caller device are applied to the active session (Paragraph 112, 77-78: the settings may be predetermined (e.g., automatically applied upon use of the application 228) and/or set or changed based on various criteria. The settings are configurable for any timing or in real-time (e.g., the monitoring may occur at any timing or continuously in real-time, Settings can include customized settings for any user, device, or groups of users or devices,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chitnis with Shekh-Yusef in order to improve the system and enhance the communication experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights