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
This action is responsive to amendment filed June 18, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/18/26, regarding the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. However a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on O’Connor in view of Oh in view of Albertsson, as presented below.
Furthermore, Applicants filed a Terminal Disclaimer in response to the Double Patenting. Therefore the Double Patenting rejection is withdrawn.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al (US Publication 20160381091) in view of Oh et al (US Publication 20070136392) in further view of Albertsson et al (US Publication 20090017856).
In reference to claim 1, O’Connor teaches a method comprising:
detecting a state of an application that corresponds to a first communication session in which a first device communicates via a first modality of communication; (see at least ¶ 47 lines 13-17 and ¶ 56, which teach monitoring the modality of an application-based communication sessions for a customer device in multi-modal communication sessions, and see at least ¶s 57,61 which further teach monitoring the context state of the communication modality)
based on the state of the application, initiating a second communication session in which the first device communicates via a second modality of communication; (see at least ¶s 62,64, which teaches the customer device initiating a second communication session via a second modality and based on the context state of the customers application based communications)
rerouting the second communication session to a second device; (see at least ¶s 50,53, which teaches routing the communication sessions to a second device/resource)
detecting a request sent by the first device via the first modality of communication in the first communication session; and providing a response to the request to the second device via the second modality of communication in the second communication session. (see at least ¶s 69,71, which teaches receiving a request from a customer via a first modality in a first session, and providing a response to the customer via a second modality in the second session)
O’Connor fails to explicitly teach detecting a state of an application, and rerouting to a second device based on the state of the application. However, Oh teaches collecting context information of an application (see Oh, at least ¶s 47,48,52) and further teaches transmitting to a second device based on selected context of the application (see Oh, at least ¶s 49,55,56). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify O’Connor based on the teachings of Oh for the purpose of integrating and facilitating the sharing of context information for applications between devices.
O’Connor fails to explicitly teach rerouting the second communication session in which the first device communicates via the second modality from the first device to a second device based on the state of the application that corresponds to the first communication session in which the first device communicates via the first modality. However, Albertsson teaches multi-modal sessions between client/mobile terminals with different capabilities (see Albertsson, at least Abstract & Background). Albertsson discloses routing a session where a first client communicates via one modality, to a second client based on another session in which the first client communicates via a different modality (see Albertsson, at least ¶s 64-69). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify O’Connor based on the teachings of Albertsson for the purpose of facilitating different session based on the needs and capabilities of the participating client devices.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by O’Connor, see at least ¶s 53,64,69, which teaches the first and second session overlapping in time, and also selecting the destination resource for the sessions that overlap in time.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by O’Connor, see at least ¶s 64,69, which teaches the first and second sessions overlap in time, and initiating the second session to overlap in time with the first session in the first modality.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by O’Connor, see at least ¶s 57,59, which teaches generating context information corresponding to the first session, and the detecting includes accessing the context information that indicates the context state of the session. Furthermore, Oh teaches collecting context information of an application (see Oh, at least ¶s 47,48,52). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify O’Conner in view of the teachings of Oh based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by O’Connor, see at least ¶s 57,58, which teaches the context state corresponding to user data determined by user action.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by O’Connor, see at least ¶s 64,69, which teaches the second modality being distinct from the first modality. Furthermore, Oh teaches providing the application state to the second device (see Oh, at least ¶s 31,56). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify O’Conner in view of the teachings of Oh based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Oh, see at least ¶s 49,56,59, which teaches the destination device of the session is configured to present a user interface based on the context state of the application. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify O’Conner in view of the teachings of Oh based on the rationale given for claim 1 above.
Claims 8-20 correspond to claims 1-7 above and are slight variations thereof. Therefore claims 8-20 are rejected based upon the same rationale as given above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/RAMY M OSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights