DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of a Continuation (CON) of Application 18/453135 which is now United States Patent 12,192,412 which is a Continuation of Application 17/590080 which is now United States Patent 11,770,479 which is a Continuation of Application 17/072152 which is now United States Patent 11,330,110. This is in response to Applicants Preliminary Amendment filed 12/06/2024 which has been entered. No Claims have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 have been added. Claims 21-40 are still pending in this application, with Claims 21, 28 and 35 being independent.
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 .
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 21-23, 26, 28-31, 33, 34-37 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 21-25, 28, 30-32, 35, 37 and 40-42 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,412; hereinafter referred to as Patent (‘412). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
NOTE: To avoid repeating the same statement throughout the double patenting rejection the instant application is directed to a set of call recipient where as Patent (‘412) is directed to a single call recipient. The difference between one call recipient and a set of call recipients is not found to be patentably distinct.
Claim 21 of the instant application is built from elements of Claims 21 and 27 of Patent (‘412). The step of determining a set of recipients of a call connection using historical data of calls recited in the instant application is crafted from receiving a first user action indicating an intent of a user to make a call connection to a recipient in Claim 21; and wherein the second user action comprises pressing a call button, selecting a pre-existing contact or selecting a number from a list of previously dialed phone numbers which is recited in Claim 27 of Patent (‘412).
Claims 22, 29 and 36 of the instant application mirrors Claim 22 of Patent (‘412) with the exception that the set of recipients is determined using a machine learning algorithm. Claims 24, 31 and 40 of Patent (‘412) recites in part wherein determining the recipient is based on a machine learning algorithm.
Claims 23, 30 and 37 of the instant application recites in part wherein receiving the user action comprises receiving an action to initiate a call. Claims 23, 30 and 42 of Patent (‘412) recites wherein determining the recipient is based on copying, pasting, or inputting a part of a phone number. The user action received to initiate the call is one or more of copying, pasting, or inputting a part of a phone number.
Claim 26, 33 and 40 of the instant application mirrors Claims 25, 32 and 41 of Patent (’412) except the set of recipients recited in the instant application is recited as a recipient in Patent (‘412).
Claim 28 of the instant application is directed to a system to implement the method recited in Claim 21 of the instant application which mirrors Claim 28 of Patent (‘412).
Claim 31 of the instant application recites in part wherein the silent call connections comprise call connections with a predetermined parameter so that there are no incoming call indicators associated with the set of recipients of a call connection… which differs from Claim 35 of Patent (‘412) in that Claim 31 recites an additional predetermined parameter to perform the function recited in Claim 25 of Patent (‘412).
Claim 35 of the instant application is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions to implement the method recited in Claim 21 of the instant application which mirrors Claim 37 of Patent (‘412).
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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-33 and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stahlman et al (2007/0147600 A1) in view of Reeves et al (7,571,238 B1), and further in view of Sorvari et al (2006/0035632 A1).
As per Claim 21, Stahlman teaches a method for establishing a communication, comprising: determining a set of recipients of a call connection using historical data of calls (Page 2, Paragraphs [0025] and [0026]). (Note: In paragraph [0025], Stahlman describes a calling party initiating, establishing and controlling telephony calls to one or more destination terminals. In paragraph [0026], Stahlman describes a user initiating a multiple call event by dialing digits [first user action: dialing a code, alphanumeric sequence, etc.] that identifies multiple destinations to which multiple calls are places in a simultaneous fashion. The use of a SIP INVITE message is shown in Figure 5)
Stahlman does not teach establishing silent call connections to the set of recipients. However, Reeves teaches establishing silent call connections to the set of recipients (Column 7, Lines 34-43). (Note: In Column 7, Lines 31-43; Reeves indicates that in route to destination terminals [three terminals are shown in Figures 1 and 5 of Stahlman] the INVITE message includes a no ring (NORING) invitation [predetermined parameter so that there are no incoming call indicators associated with the one or more call recipients])
(Note: The no ring (NORING) invitation described by Reeves directs the destination terminal to initiate the connection without alerting the user of the destination terminal. [i.e. evidence of establishing one or more silent call connections with the one or more call recipients determined based on the part of the phone number before the user takes a second user action to initiate a call connection])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Stahlman with the method as taught by Reeves to authorize resource reservation for a communication session over a packet-switched network without requiring the communication server to know the identity of or significant details about the network elements providing the communication.
The combination of Stahlman and Reeves does not teach receiving a user action; and in response to receiving the user action, establishing an active call connection. However, Sovari teaches receiving a user action; and in response to receiving the user action, establishing an active call connection (Figure 7B – Reference 708; Figure 8A – Reference 802; Page 9, Paragraph [0075]; Page 10, Paragraph [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Stahlman and Reeves with the method taught by Sovari to reduce the amount of time required to reach a targeted party in an emergency situation by reserving the communication resources ahead of time enabling rapid communication where time is of the essence.
As per Claims 22, 29 and 36, the combination of Stahlman, Reeves and Sovari teaches wherein determining the set of recipients comprises determining the set of recipients using a machine learning algorithm (Sovari – Adaptive List: Figure 7B – Reference 706B; Figure 8A – Reference 804; Page 4, Paragraph [0038], [0041] and [0042]; Page 9, Paragraph [0075]; Page 10, Paragraph [0077] and [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Stahlman and Reeves with the method taught by Sovari to reduce the amount of time required to reach a targeted party in an emergency situation by reserving the communication resources ahead of time enabling rapid communication where time is of the essence.
As per Claims 23, 30 and 37, Stahlman teaches wherein receiving the user action comprises receiving an action to initiate a call (Page 2, Paragraphs [0025] and [0026]).
As per Claims 24 and 38, the combination of Stahlman, Reeves and Sovari teaches wherein the silent call connections comprise call connections with a predetermined parameter so that there are no incoming call indicators associated with the set of recipients of a call connection. (Note: The NORING parameter described in Claim 21 is found to read on the claimed language)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Stahlman and Reeves with the method taught by Sovari to reduce the amount of time required to reach a targeted party in an emergency situation by reserving the communication resources ahead of time enabling rapid communication where time is of the essence.
As per Claims 25 and 39, the combination of Stahlman, Reeves and Sovari teaches wherein the active call connection comprises multiple active call connections as described in Claim 21. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Stahlman and Reeves with the method taught by Sovari to reduce the amount of time required to reach a targeted party in an emergency situation by reserving the communication resources ahead of time enabling rapid communication where time is of the essence
As per Claims 26, 33 and 40, the combination of Stahlman, Reeves and Sovari teaches wherein determining the set of recipients comprises further determining the set of recipients based on a user profile (Sovari: Figure 1 – References 108 and 112; Page 4, Paragraph [0039]; Page 5, Paragraph [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Stahlman and Reeves with the method taught by Sovari to reduce the amount of time required to reach a targeted party in an emergency situation by reserving the communication resources ahead of time enabling rapid communication where time is of the essence.
As per Claim 28, the combination of Stahlman, Reeves and Sovari teaches a method as described in Claim 21. Sovari also teaches a memory storing instructions (Page 12, Paragraphs [0096]); and a processor (Figure 11 – Reference 1102; Page 12, Paragraphs [0095] and [0096]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system taught by Stahlman and Reeves with the method taught by Sovari to reduce the amount of time required to reach a targeted party in an emergency situation by reserving the communication resources ahead of time enabling rapid communication where time is of the essence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (2016/0072943 A1), Vaughn et al (2020/0389551 A1), KIM et al (2017/0085706 A1), Filiba et al (2006/0240877 A1), Geiger et al (2015/0195695 A1), Tassone et al (9,178,773 B1), Sansalone (2013/0303133 A1) and Sakaniwa (2007/0275737 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods for establishing simultaneous communication connections with multiple parties.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights