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 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP- 2013038750 (hereinafter JP) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10165115 (Kreiner et al. hereinafter U.S.).
With respect to claims 1 and 11,
JP, which is considered to be the closest prior art to the subject matter of claim 1, discloses a method comprising: executing a proxy call request to an operator terminal while maintaining a call connection to a user terminal (see paragraphs 18 and 43 of JP); when requesting the proxy call, searching an operator information DB and selecting an operator associated with the operator terminal (see paragraph 43 of JP); and when the operator terminal approves the proxy call request, exchanging and connecting the call to the approved operator terminal (see paragraph 18 of JP).
JP teaches the claimed limitations as shown above except for identifying a plurality of helpers associated with a callee. However, this different feature is merely an obvious variation of the disclosure of U.S. considering determining, by a processor, a call handling action at least by analyzing caller identification data and a call authentication parameter of a call authentication scenario; and diverting the call to a family member associated with a customer of a called party device (see column 27, lines 20-32, claims 1-2 of U.S.). In addition, claim 11 relates to a system, but it shares substantially the same technical features with claim 1. Therefore, the same reasoning as in claim 1 applies to claim 11. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of U.S. into JP as an obvious convenience to a user.
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 2 and 12, such are obvious from the feature of JP considering executing the proxy call request to an operator terminal while maintaining the call connection to the user terminal (see paragraphs 18, 43 of JP).
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 3-4 and 13-14 are merely obvious variations of the disclosure of JP considering executing the proxy call request to the operator terminal while maintaining a call connection to a user terminal (see paragraphs 18, 43 of JP), and the disclosure of U.S. considering that call handling action identifiers of call management data can define messages that are to be generated and/or to whom the messages are to be sent (e.g., SMS, MMS, email, and/or other messages and/or entities, devices, services, applications, and/or processors that are to receive the messages) (see column 13, lines 29-38 of U.S.), and a call handling command can be passed to another network entity that includes a short message service center ("SMSC"), etc. (see column 21, lines 4-18 of U.S.).
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 5 and 15, such are merely obvious variations of the disclosure of JP considering that when a proxy call is requested, a screen window is displayed on a display unit (see paragraph 60 of JP).
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 6-8 and 16-18, such are obvious from the feature of JP considering exchanging the call and connecting the call to the approved operator terminal, initiating the proxy call between a caller terminal and the operator terminal, and displaying information about a user related to the proxy call on the display unit (see paragraphs 73-74 of JP).
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 9, and 19-20 is obvious in view from the features of U.S. considering that a call authentication parameter can define one or more of a whitelist, a blacklist, a historical rule, a default rule, a rule for explicitly suspicious caller identification data, a spatial rule, an inverse throttling rule, a metadata rule, an explicit feedback rule, a schedule rule, a spoofing rule, a combination thereof, or the like, and call authentication parameters can define what call handling actions should be taken (see column 11, lines 6-20 of U.S).
Claim 10 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2013038750 (hereinafter JP) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10165115 (Kreiner et al. hereinafter U.S.) and further in view of JP2006197376 (hereinafter JP2)
With respect to the additional limitations of claims 10 and are merely obvious variations of the disclosure of JP2 considering initiating a call recording (see paragraph 46 of JP2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of JP2 into JP/US as an obvious convenience to a user.
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 double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,917. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are almost identical. For example, in claim 1 of the instant application such comprises A-D while the patent comprises A-F. E-F are found in the dependent claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the Abstracts and Figs, of the additional references cited on the accompanying 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571 -272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484.
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 https://pair.direct.uspto.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).gov.
12Jun2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights