DETAILED ACTION
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 Patent No. 11,695,868 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the continuations are broader than the ones in patent, broad claims in the continuation application are rejected previously patented narrow claims. For example, claim 1 of the present invention is the same as claim 1 of Patent No. 11,695,868 B2 except that “a private network and configured to communicate via a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform.” Therefore, claim 1 of the present invention is broader than the patented claim 1.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 Patent No. 11,695,868 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the continuations are broader than the ones in patent, broad claims in the continuation application are rejected previously patented narrow claims. For example, claim 1 of the present invention is the same as claim 1 of Patent No. 11,695,868 B2 except that “a private network and configured to communicate via a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform.” Therefore, claim 1 of the present invention is broader than the patented claim 1.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 Patent No.12,107,992 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the continuations are broader than the ones in patent, broad claims in the continuation application are rejected previously patented narrow claims. For example, claim 1 of the present invention is the same as claim 1 of Patent No.12,107,992 B2 except that “a private network and configured to communicate via a unified communications as a service (UCaaS) platform.” Therefore, claim 1 of the present invention is broader than the patented claim 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pub. No. 2013/0208717 A1 to Kannappan in view of U.S Pub No. 2014/0321335 A1 to LIN.
Regarding claim 1, Kannappan teaches a method comprising: transferring a call to the second device based on the detected user presence (Abstract, Fig. 9 and paragraphs [0029], [0039] and [0050]- [0051]; a proximity between the wireless headset 10 and the computer 2 is determined. Based upon the determined donned or doffed state of wireless headset 10 and its proximity to computer 2, an incoming call notification responsive to the incoming call is output by telephony audio routing and call notification application 26 to one or more of the headset speaker 48, the headset user interface 42, the computer loudspeakers 6, or the computer display 4).
However, Kannappan does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to a first device, a notification that indicates a detected user presence at a second device, wherein the notification excludes detector data.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN disclose transmitting, to a first device, a notification that indicates a detected user presence at a second device, wherein the notification excludes detector data (Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0022] and [0035]-[0036]; detection and notification of called party presence may include receiving a request to establish a telecommunication session, obtaining presence information derived from presence detection equipment associated with the telecommunication device responsive to the received request, determining presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and sending a notification message including an indication of the determined presence of the called party).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of transmitting, to a first device, a notification that indicates a detected user presence at a second device, wherein the notification excludes detector data as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 2, Kannappan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an indication of the call includes metadata associated with the call (paragraphs [0019] and [0045]; Upon receiving an incoming VoIP call, computer 2 sends a headset visual and/or vibrate incoming call notification 64 to headset 10 which is output at the headset visual and/or vibrate indicator. In one example, incoming call notification 64 is either a visual incoming call notification or a vibrate incoming call notification determined by computer 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kannappan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein an indication of the call includes a request for a user status (paragraphs [0019] and [0045]; Upon receiving an incoming VoIP call, computer 2 sends a headset visual and/or vibrate incoming call notification 64 to headset 10 which is output at the headset visual and/or vibrate indicator. In one example, incoming call notification 64 is either a visual incoming call notification or a vibrate incoming call notification determined by computer 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kannappan does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an area of an image associated with the detector data that includes at least a first portion of a user.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN disclose determining an area of an image associated with the detector data that includes at least a first portion of a user (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of determining an area of an image associated with the detector data that includes at least a first portion of a user as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 5, Kannappan does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user; and determining a second area of the image that includes at least a second portion of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN disclose determining a first area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user; and determining a second area of the image that includes at least a second portion of the user (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of determining a first area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user; and determining a second area of the image that includes at least a second portion of the user as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 6, Kannappan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the notification includes an indication of a noise level (paragraph [0018]; current call notification methods do not work well if the headset is in the user's pocket or the user is in a crowded or noisy location).
Regarding claim 7, Kannappan teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the notification includes an indication that a user is present and unavailable when a noise level reaches a threshold (paragraph [0018]; current call notification methods do not work well if the headset is in the user's pocket or the user is in a crowded or noisy location).
Regarding claim 8, Kannappan does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein a detector is configured to perform a scan that does not capture facial data.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN discloses wherein a detector is configured to perform a scan that does not capture facial data (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of wherein a detector is configured to perform a scan that does not capture facial data as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 9, Kannappan teaches a system comprising: wherein the first device is configured to transfer a call to the second device based on the detected user presence (Abstract, Fig. 9 and paragraphs [0029], [0039] and [0050]- [0051]; a proximity between the wireless headset 10 and the computer 2 is determined. Based upon the determined donned or doffed state of wireless headset 10 and its proximity to computer 2, an incoming call notification responsive to the incoming call is output by telephony audio routing and call notification application 26 to one or more of the headset speaker 48, the headset user interface 42, the computer loudspeakers 6, or the computer display 4).
However, Kannappan does not explicitly disclose a first device a second device configured to: transmit, to the first device, a notification that indicates a detected user presence, wherein the notification excludes detector data.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN disclose a second device configured to: transmit, to the first device, a notification that indicates a detected user presence, wherein the notification excludes detector data (Abstract, Fig. 2, paragraphs [0022] and [0035]-[0036]; detection and notification of called party presence may include receiving a request to establish a telecommunication session, obtaining presence information derived from presence detection equipment associated with the telecommunication device responsive to the received request, determining presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and sending a notification message including an indication of the determined presence of the called party).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of a second device configured to: transmit, to the first device, a notification that indicates a detected user presence, wherein the notification excludes detector data as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 10, Kannappan does not explicitly teach the system of claim 9, wherein the second device is configured to determine an area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN disclose wherein the second device is configured to determine an area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of wherein the second device is configured to determine an area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 11, Kannappan does not teach the system of claim 9, wherein the second device is configured to determine a first area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user, wherein the second device is configured to determine a second area of the image that includes at least a second portion of the user.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN disclose wherein the second device is configured to determine a first area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user, wherein the second device is configured to determine a second area of the image that includes at least a second portion of the user (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of wherein the second device is configured to determine a first area of an image that includes at least a first portion of a user, wherein the second device is configured to determine a second area of the image that includes at least a second portion of the user as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 12, Kannappan teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the notification includes an indication of a noise level (paragraph [0018]; current call notification methods do not work well if the headset is in the user's pocket or the user is in a crowded or noisy location).
Regarding claim 13, Kannappan teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the notification includes an indication that a user is present and unavailable when a noise level reaches a threshold (paragraph [0018]; current call notification methods do not work well if the headset is in the user's pocket or the user is in a crowded or noisy location).
Regarding claim 14, Kannappan does not teach the system of claim 9, further comprising: a detector configured to perform a scan that does not capture facial data.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN discloses a detector configured to perform a scan that does not capture facial data (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of a detector configured to perform a scan that does not capture facial data as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Claim 15 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim correspond to system claim 9. Therefore, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected based on system claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, Kannappan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a noise level (paragraph [0018]; current call notification methods do not work well if the headset is in the user's pocket or the user is in a crowded or noisy location).
Regarding claim 17, Kannappan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: determining a noise level, wherein the notification indicates that a user is present and unavailable when the noise level reaches a threshold (paragraph [0018]; current call notification methods do not work well if the headset is in the user's pocket or the user is in a crowded or noisy location).
Regarding claim 18, Kannappan does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: performing a scan that does not capture facial data.
In the same field of endeavor, LIN discloses wherein the operations further comprise: performing a scan that does not capture facial data (paragraphs [0033] and [0036]; cameras may provide the obtained presence information to the presence detection module 136 for presence analysis. In some embodiments, images (still or video) captured by cameras 144 of the called party device may be analyzed to determine if a called party is present, or was recently present).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify Kannappan’s teaching with a feature of wherein the operations further comprise: performing a scan that does not capture facial data as taught by LIN in order to determine presence of the called party based on the obtained presence information, and notifying the calling party of the determined presence of a called party (paragraph [0008], LIN).
Regarding claim 19, Kannappan does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the detector data is based on a privacy setting that allows partial access to the detector (paragraphs [0037]- [ [0038]; Processor 34 allows for processing data, including managing donned and doffed data from donned and doffed detector 36, and receiving incoming call notifications over wireless transceiver 52. Processor 34 may include a variety of processors).
Regarding claim 20, Kannappan teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the detector data is based on a privacy setting (paragraphs [0037]- [ [0038]; Processor 34 allows for processing data, including managing donned and doffed data from donned and doffed detector 36, and receiving incoming call notifications over wireless transceiver 52. Processor 34 may include a variety of processors).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKELAW A TESHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-5302. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6pm.
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, FAN TSANG can be reached at (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 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.
AKELAW TESHALE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/AKELAW TESHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights