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
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, 3-6, 8-12, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US Pub. No. 20100087182) in view of YANG (Chinese Pub. No. CN101115096B).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-5, Stewart teaches a method for playing an incoming call ringtone which is applied to a terminal, comprising:
receiving a call request which requests a calling ringtone (fig.1, fig.3, step 62; paragraphs 0035, 0059, 0060);
the call request which requests the calling ringtone requesting the terminal to download the calling ringtone from a server and play the calling ringtone (fig.3, step 62, fig.4, step 80; paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063);
in a case where the terminal is configured to reject the calling ringtone, refusing to download an audio of the calling ringtone from the server (paragraphs 0084, 0088, 0091); and
in case where the terminal is configured to allow the calling ringtone, downloading the calling ringtone from the server, and playing the calling ringtone (fig.3, fig.4, step 80; paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063).
However, Stewart does not specifically teach in a case where the terminal is configured to suppress calling ringback tone [i.e., reject the calling ringtone], playing an audio of a local ringtone. YANG teaches in a case where the terminal is configured to reject the calling ringtone, playing an audio of a local ringtone (paragraphs 0062, 0085). 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 Stewart to incorporate the feature of in a case where the terminal is configured to reject the calling ringtone, playing an audio of a local ringtone in Stewart’s invention as taught by YANG. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to play local ring tone conveniently.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Stewart teaches wherein receiving the call request which requests the calling ringtone comprises:
receiving a call request (fig.1, fig.3, step 62; paragraphs 0035, 0059, 0060); and
in a case where a message for requesting a download of the calling ringtone which is sent by the server is monitored, determining the call request as the call request which requests the calling ringtone (fig.3, fig.4, step 80; paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Stewart teaches wherein refusing to download the audio of the calling ringtone (paragraphs 0084, 0088, 0091) from the server comprises: sending a message for rejecting a download of the calling ringtone to the server (fig.1, fig.3; paragraphs 0035, 0048, 0059, 0060, 0084, 0088, 0091); and
downloading the calling ringtone from the server comprises: sending a message for requesting a download of the calling ringtone to the server, and downloading the calling ringtone from the server (fig.3, fig.4, step 80; paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0050, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Stewart does not specifically teach receiving a call request which does not request a calling ringtone, and playing the local ringtone. YANG teaches receiving a call request which does not request a calling ringtone, and playing the local ringtone (paragraphs 0062, 0085) (Note; YANG teaches if the calling party has not been customized ring back tone, called switch control called playing local ringing (see paragraph 0062)). 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 Stewart to incorporate the feature of receiving a call request which does not request a calling ringtone, and playing the local ringtone in Stewart’s invention in order to play local ringtone conveniently if the calling party does not have any particular ring tone.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Stewart teaches determining existence of a call request which requests a calling ringtone for a terminal (fig.3, step 62, fig.4, step 80; paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Stewart teaches wherein in a case where it is determined that the terminal is configured to reject the calling ringtone, refusing to send the audio of the calling ringtone to the terminal comprises: in a case of receiving, from the terminal, a message for rejecting a download of the calling ringtone, refusing to send the audio of the calling ringtone to the terminal (fig.1, fig.3; paragraphs 0035, 0048, 0059, 0060, 0084, 0088, 0091); and
in a case where it is determined that the terminal is configured to allow the calling ringtone, sending the calling ringtone to the terminal comprises: in a case of receiving, from the terminal, a message for requesting the download of the calling ringtone, sending the calling ringtone to the terminal (fig.3, fig.4, step 80; paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063).
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Stewart teaches terminal, comprising one or more storage devices and one or more processors; wherein the one or more storage devices store a computer program executable by the one or more processors, and when executed by the one or more processors, the computer program implements the method for playing an incoming call ringtone, comprising: receiving a call request which requests a calling ringtone (paragraphs 0028, 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063, 0081).
Regarding claim 10, Stewart teaches server, comprising one or more storage devices and one or more processors; wherein the one or more storage devices store a computer program executable by the one or more processors, and when executed by the one or more processors, the computer program implements the method for providing an incoming call ringtone (fig.1, fig.3; paragraphs 0028, 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063, 0081).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Stewart teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored there on a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the method for providing an incoming call ringtone (fig.1, fig.3; paragraphs 0028, 0035, 0038, 0055, 0059, 0060, 0063, 0081).
Claims 2, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US Pub. No. 20100087182) in view of YANG (Chinese Pub. No. CN101115096B) further in view of Johnson (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0303151).
Claims 2, 7, 13 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Stewart in view of YANG does not specifically teach downloading the video of the video calling ringtone from the server, downloading the video and the audio of the video calling ringtone from the server, and playing the video and the audio of the video calling ringtone. Johnson teaches downloading the video of the video calling ringtone from the server, downloading the video and the audio of the video calling ringtone from the server, and playing the video and the audio of the video calling ringtone (paragraphs 0016, 0017, 0026). 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 Stewart in view of YANG to incorporate the feature of downloading the video of the video calling ringtone from the server, downloading the video and the audio of the video calling ringtone from the server, and playing the video and the audio of the video calling ringtone in Stewart’s invention in view of YANG’s invention in order to provide particular type of media as ringtone selected by a caller.
Conclusion
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
June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights