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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
2. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,339. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in this continuation are broader than the ones in the patent, in the re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761, broad claims in continuation application are rejected as obvious double patenting over previously patented narrow claims. For example, independent claim 1 is of current invention are the shortened versions of claim 1 of the Patent respectively.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Brittain et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0196696) in view of Zeng et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0269171).
Regarding claim 1, Brittain teaches a computer-implemented method for communication control, the computer-implemented method [Abstract] comprising:
receiving a telephone call (call setup request) from a plain old telephone service (POTS) device (telephone 1633), the telephone call comprising a telephone number (telephony party identifier) corresponding to a destination device [Para. 203 “the calling party telephony device is an analogue telephone 1633 (sometimes called a black-phone or Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) phone) located in the PSTN 1630”; Para. 204 “At step 17a, the calling party dials a particular telephony party identifier which causes an initial call setup request to be transmitted to the originating local telephone exchange switch 1634 which serves the calling party telephony device; The originating local telephone exchange switch 1634 has been configured to generate an incoming call setup request for calls directed to the particular telephony party identifier, which is transmitted to the softswitch 1608 at step 17b.” It’s clear that telephony party identifier is the recipient’s telephone number; Para. 205 “ The softswitch 1608 processes the incoming call setup request of step 17b and identifies that the request includes the particular telephony party identifier, which it recognizes as a location-related telephony party identifier” Para. 232 “the telephony party identifier, which is recognised as the telephony party identifier to be subject to location-based processing, comprises a telephone dialling number”. Fig. 17 and related description];
providing a ringing tone (ring-back tone) to the POTS device (telephone 1633) [Para. 208 “the softswitch 1608 transmits a corresponding message to the LES 1634 at step 17r which causes, at step 17s, a ringback tone to be generated at the POTS telephone 1633 so that the calling party is aware that the telephony devices 1602, 103, 104 are ringing”];
transmitting the telephone number (telephony party identifier) to a proxy agent (softswitch 1608) [Para. 204 “The originating local telephone exchange switch 1634 has been configured to generate an incoming call setup request for calls directed to the particular telephony party identifier, which is transmitted to the softswitch 1608 at step 17b”; Para. 205 “The softswitch 1608 processes the incoming call setup request of step 17b and identifies that the request includes the particular telephony party identifier, which it recognizes as a location-related telephony party identifier” and para. 193];
receiving a message (ANM message) from the proxy agent (softswitch 1608) [Para. 209 “the softswitch 1608 forwards the ANM message to the calling party telephone 1633 via the originating local telephone exchange switch 1634 at steps 17v and 17w”], the message indicating that a call recipient has answered the call [Para. 193, 205, and 209].
However, Brittian doesn’t explicitly teach the message indicating that a telephonic connection has been established between the proxy agent and the destination device.
Zeng taches the message (“200 OK” signal) indicating (acknowledging) that a telephonic connection (cellular call leg) has been established (is established) between the proxy agent (PBX 148) and the destination device (mobile electronic device 104) [Para. 69 “Specifically, similar to the mobile-initiated call described above and shown in FIG. 6, target phone 162 sends an incoming call to the destination number of mobile electronic device 104, which is received at PBX 148 (block 700).”, “At this point in the PBX-initiated call, SMP 164 sends an invite over SIP-T to PBX 148 with the cellular number and ANI number to use (block 708), prompting PBX 148 to make a cellular call to mobile electronic device 104 with the ANI number (block 710), prompting mobile electronic device 104 to ring” and “Mobile electronic device 104 answers the call (block 712), and a "200 OK" signal is sent from PBX 148 to SMP 164, acknowledging that the cellular call leg to mobile electronic device 104 is established (block 714)”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Brittain’s softswitch 1608 to use Zeng’s proxy side confirmation, in which the proxy agent (PBX 148) send a message indicating (acknowledging) that its telephonic connection (call leg) with the destination has been establish, before forwards its message (ANM message) to the POTS-side exchange. This medication would reduce premature answer signaling and improve call setup reliability. and
Brittain further teaches responsive to receiving the message (ANM message) from the proxy agent (softswitch 1608), creating a real-time communications connection between the POTS device (telephone 1633) and the destination device (telephone 1633) by providing answer signaling for the received telephone call to the POTS device [Para. 209, 210, fig. 17 (b) and related description].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights