DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/25 has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Examiner Comment
The examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,294,620 (Patent ‘620). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the reasons noted below.
In the chart below, the examiner is utilizing claim 1 (independent claims 8 and 14 are similar in scope) of the instant application, as exemplary, with independent claim 1 (independent claims 8 and 14 are similar in scope) of the Patent '620.
Instant Application 19/097032
Patent No. 12,294,620
Claim 1: A method comprising:
transmitting a code for display on a first mobile device and a second mobile device;
obtaining first image data from the first mobile device and second image data from the second mobile device; and
transferring a communication session from the first mobile device to the second mobile device when the first image data and the second image data match the code.
Claim 1: A method comprising:
enabling a communication session over a first communication channel between a first mobile device and a client device;
transmitting a code for display on the first mobile device and a second mobile device;
comparing, to the code, first image data received from the first mobile device and second image data received from the second mobile device; and
transferring the communication session to a second communication channel when the first image data and the second image data match the code.
As shown above, the comparison between claims 1, 8 and 14 of the instant Application and the claims 1, 8 and 14 of the Patent reveals that Patent claims 1, 8 and 14 are simply a species of the broader genus claims 1, 8 and 14 of the instant Application.
For example, the instant limitation “obtaining first image data from the first mobile device and second image data from the second mobile device” is broader than the Patent limitation “comparing, to the code, first image data received from the first mobile device and second image data received from the second mobile device” (emphasis added). Said differently, while the instant limitation broadly obtains the first image data and second image data, the Patent more specifically receives, i.e. obtains, the first image data and second image data to compare it to the code.
Further, dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 of instant Application are the same as dependent claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 of the Patent ‘620.
Hence, claims 1-20 of the instant Application is generic to the species of the invention covered by claims 1-20 of the Patent. Thus, the broader generic invention is anticipated by the narrower species of the Patent. Without a terminal disclaimer, the species claims preclude issuance of the generic application. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “receive a request from the second mobile device to transfer the communication session to the second mobile device” is recited. However, in claim 8, from which claim 10 depends, the limitation “a server configured to…transfer a communication session from the first mobile device to the second mobile device when the first image data and the second image data match the code” is recited. In other words, the server has already transferred the communication session to the second mobile device.
Therefore, in claim 10, it is unclear why the server would receive a request from the second mobile device to transfer the communication session to the second mobile device when the communication session has already been transferred based on first image data and second image data matching the code as recited in claim 8.
For purposes of applying prior art, the examiner interprets the limitation of claim 10 to occur before the “transfer a communication session…” limitation in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youssefian et al. (U.S. 2014/0208384 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Youssefian discloses a method comprising:
transmitting a code for display on a first mobile device and a second mobile device (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012, 0076, 0079 and 0082; Youssefian discloses both a primary device, such as a sales associate smartphone, i.e. “a first mobile device, and a secondary device, such as the sales associate’s colleague’s device, i.e. “a second mobile device”, acquiring an authentication code from the device pairing server, i.e. “transmitting a code…”. The code can be viewed, i.e. “…for display”);
obtaining first image data from the first mobile device and second image data from the second mobile device (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012, 0076 and 0082; Youssefian discloses both the primary device and the secondary device receiving the authentication code and the code being a QR code that can be scanned, i.e. “obtaining first image data…and second image data”. The sales associate wants to transfer the session to his colleague. In other words, the sales associate and the colleague receive the authentication code on their devices, in which an image is obtained from the scanning of the authentication code, e.g. QR code, by the devices); and
transferring a communication session from the first mobile device to the second mobile device when the first image data and the second image data match the code (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012, 0076 and 0082; Youssefian discloses both the primary device, such as the sales associate device, i.e. “first mobile device”, and colleague’s device, i.e. “second mobile device”, acquiring the same authentication code. The sales associate may completely transfer a data share session, i.e. “transferring a communication session”, to the colleague using the authentication code and drop out of the session. The authentication code being a QR code that can be scanned, such as, the sale associate and colleague do a QR code scan. In other words, the sales associate device and the colleague’s device scan the same authentication code, e.g. QR code, and as such, the “first image data and the second image data” from the scanned code are the same, i.e. “match the code”, so that the session is completely transferred).
Further, Youssefian discloses the additional limitations of claim 8, a server (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0010 and 0011; Youssefian discloses a device pairing server).
Further, Youssefian discloses the additional limitations of claim 14, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (see Youssefian; paragraph 0018; Youssefian discloses a non-transitory processor readable medium storing code representing instructions to cause a processor to pair at least two micro-processing devices ).
Regarding claim 4, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further Youssefian clearly discloses wherein the code is an image that includes an embedded code (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012 and 0076; Youssefian discloses both the primary device and the secondary device receiving the authentication code and the code being a QR code, i.e. “an embedded code”).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14, as discussed above, and further Youssefian clearly discloses wherein the code is a quick response (QR) code associated with the communication session over a first communication channel (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012, 0076 and 0175; Youssefian discloses both the primary device and the secondary device receiving the authentication code and the code being a QR code, i.e. “an embedded code”. The information is sent and received via a communication channel).
Regarding claim 11, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further Youssefian clearly discloses wherein the code includes an embedded pre-authentication code (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0070 and 0076; Youssefian discloses a QR code, i.e. “embedded…”, including the unique authentication code, i.e. “pre-authentication code”).
Regarding claim 17, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and further Youssefian clearly discloses wherein the code is embedded in an image (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012 and 0076; Youssefian discloses both the primary device and the secondary device receiving the authentication code and the code being a QR code, i.e. “code is embedded in an image”).
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 factual inquiries 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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefian et al. (U.S. 2014/0208384 A1) in view of Krishnakumar et al. (U.S. 2013/0212289 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose transmitting a request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel.
In analogous art, Krishnakumar discloses transmitting a request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Krishnakumar; paragraphs 0011, 0025 and 0034; Krishnakumar discloses a communication session on a first communication channel and transfer of the communication session to a second communication channel, i.e. “…from a first communication channel to a second communication channel”. In particular, the transfer is a continuation of a communication session between a desktop PC, which can be a mobile computer used as desktop replacement, i.e. “first mobile device”, and another mobile device. The PC is provided a popup, i.e. “transmitting a request to the first mobile device…”, to allow a user to start the transfer process, i.e. “to confirm a transfer…”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Krishnakumar because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Krishnakumar into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing an ongoing communication session to be transferred or saved for a later time (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 3, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose transmitting a pop-up notification request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel; and receiving a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed.
In analogous art, Krishnakumar discloses transmitting a pop-up notification request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Krishnakumar; paragraphs 0011, 0025 and 0034; Krishnakumar discloses a communication session on a first communication channel and transfer of the communication session to a second communication channel, i.e. “…from a first communication channel to a second communication channel”. In particular, the transfer is a continuation of a communication session between a desktop PC, which can be a mobile computer used as desktop replacement, i.e. “first mobile device”, and another mobile device. The PC is provided a popup, i.e. “transmitting a pop-up notification request to the first mobile device…”, to allow a user to start the transfer process, i.e. “to confirm a transfer…”); and
receiving a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0034; Krishnakumar discloses providing the popup to the user and upon a command, i.e. “receiving a response that indicates…”, from the user, starting the transfer process, i.e. “…the transfer is confirmed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Krishnakumar because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Krishnakumar into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing an ongoing communication session to be transferred or saved for a later time (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0027).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as discussed above. And while Youssefian discloses an input mechanism such as a barcode scanner (see Youssefian; paragraph 0096), Youssefian does not explicitly disclose wherein the code is a bar code associated with the communication session over a first communication channel.
In analogous art, Krishnakumar discloses wherein the code is a bar code associated with the communication session over a first communication channel (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0034; Krishnakumar discloses information associated with the communication session. The information being encoded in an information-bearing display, such as, a barcode, i.e. “a bar code associated with the communication session”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Krishnakumar because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of a barcode associated with the transfer of a communication session as taught by Krishnakumar into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the code that is scanned by the sales associate to not only be a QR code that is associated with the device pairing (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012 and 0076) but also a barcode in the case the sales associated device has a barcode scanner (see Youssefian; paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 6, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose transmitting a pop-up notification request to the first mobile device and a client device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel; and receiving a first response from the first mobile device and a second response from the client device that each indicate that the transfer is confirmed.
In analogous art, Krishnakumar discloses transmitting a pop-up notification request to the first mobile device and a client device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Krishnakumar; paragraphs 0011, 0025 and 0034; Krishnakumar discloses a communication session on a first communication channel and transfer of the communication session to a second communication channel, i.e. “…from a first communication channel to a second communication channel”. In particular, the transfer is a continuation of a communication session between a desktop PC, which can be a mobile computer used as desktop replacement, i.e. “first mobile device”, and another mobile device. The PC is provided a popup, i.e. “transmitting a pop-up notification request to the first mobile device…”, to allow a user to start the transfer process, i.e. “to confirm a transfer…”); and
receiving a first response from the first mobile device and a second response from the client device that each indicate that the transfer is confirmed (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0034; Krishnakumar discloses providing the popup to the user and upon a command, i.e. “receiving a response that indicates…”, from the user, starting the transfer process, i.e. “…the transfer is confirmed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Krishnakumar because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Krishnakumar into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing an ongoing communication session to be transferred or saved for a later time (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 18, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. And while Youssefian discloses an input mechanism such as a barcode scanner (see Youssefian; paragraph 0096), Youssefian does not explicitly disclose wherein the code is a bar code.
In analogous art, Krishnakumar discloses wherein the code is a bar code (see Krishnakumar; paragraph 0034; Krishnakumar discloses information associated with the communication session. The information being encoded in an information-bearing display, such as, a barcode, i.e. “a bar code”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Krishnakumar because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of a barcode associated with the transfer of a communication session as taught by Krishnakumar into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of scalability by allowing the code that is scanned by the sales associate to not only be a QR code that is associated with the device pairing (see Youssefian; paragraphs 0012 and 0076) but also a barcode in the case the sales associated device has a barcode scanner (see Youssefian; paragraph 0096).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefian et al. (U.S. 2014/0208384 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. 2016/0057123 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose wherein the server is further configured to: receive a request from the second mobile device to transfer the communication session to the second mobile device.
In analogous art, Jiang discloses wherein the server is further configured to: receive a request from the second mobile device to transfer the communication session to the second mobile device (see Jiang; paragraph 0032; Jiang discloses a mobile device, i.e. “second mobile device”, requests for a session to be migrated to the mobile device, i.e. “transfer the communication session to the second mobile device”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Jiang because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of a second device requesting a key for migration of a session as taught by Jiang into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency and convenience by not having a user to log out of a session in order to have the session on a different device, thus preventing losing any state information and data that may not have been saved (see Jiang; paragraph 0005).
Claims 12, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Youssefian et al. (U.S. 2014/0208384 A1) in view of Paluch (U.S. 2012/0290952 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose wherein the server is further configured to: transmit a chat message request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel.
In analogous art, Paluch discloses wherein the server is further configured to: transmit a chat message request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101, 0104 and Figure 17; Paluch discloses prompting the transfer of a chat session from a current device to another device. Further, a chat message stating “Chat with Jill transferred from television” can be displayed, i.e. “…confirm a transfer of the communication session”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Paluch because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Paluch into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the server to update information so that the target device receives all messages for the chat session and not the current device (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101 and 0102).
Regarding claim 13, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose wherein the server is further configured to: transmit a chat message request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel; and receive a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed.
In analogous art, Paluch discloses wherein the server is further configured to: transmit a chat message request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101, 0104 and Figure 17; Paluch discloses prompting the transfer of a chat session from a current device to another device. Further, a chat message stating “Chat with Jill transferred from television” can be displayed, i.e. “…confirm a transfer of the communication session”); and
receive a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed (see Paluch; paragraph 0101; Paluch discloses prompting to confirm the transfer of the chat session and confirming the transfer, i.e. “a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Paluch because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Paluch into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the server to update information so that the target device receives all messages for the chat session and not the current device (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101 and 0102).
Regarding claim 15, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel.
In analogous art, Paluch discloses transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request to the first mobile device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Paluch; paragraphs 0025, 0101, 0104 and Figure 17; Paluch discloses prompting the transfer of a chat session from a current device to another device. Further, a chat message stating “Chat with Jill transferred from television” can be displayed, i.e. “…confirm a transfer of the communication session”. Further, the network used may be a cellular or wireless network. As such, the chat message is sent/received over a cellular/wireless network, and as such, the chat message is a SMS message, i.e. “transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Paluch because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Paluch into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the server to update information so that the target device receives all messages for the chat session and not the current device (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101 and 0102).
Regarding claim 16, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request to the first mobile device to obtain a confirmation of a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel; and receiving a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed.
In analogous art, Paluch discloses transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request to the first mobile device to obtain a confirmation of a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Paluch; paragraphs 0025, 0101, 0104 and Figure 17; Paluch discloses prompting the transfer of a chat session from a current device to another device. Further, a chat message stating “Chat with Jill transferred from television” can be displayed, i.e. “…confirm a transfer of the communication session”. Further, the network used may be a cellular or wireless network. As such, the chat message is sent/received over a cellular/wireless network, and as such, the chat message is a SMS message, i.e. “transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request”); and
receiving a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed (see Paluch; paragraph 0101; Paluch discloses prompting to confirm the transfer of the chat session and confirming the transfer, i.e. “a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Paluch because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Paluch into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the server to update information so that the target device receives all messages for the chat session and not the current device (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101 and 0102).
Regarding claim 19, Youssefian discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Youssefian does not explicitly disclose transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request to the first mobile device and a client device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel; and receiving a first response from the first mobile device and a second response from the client device that each indicate that the transfer is confirmed.
In analogous art, Paluch discloses transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request to the first mobile device and a client device to confirm a transfer of the communication session from a first communication channel to a second communication channel (see Paluch; paragraphs 0025, 0101, 0104 and Figure 17; Paluch discloses prompting the transfer of a chat session from a current device to another device. Further, a chat message stating “Chat with Jill transferred from television” can be displayed, i.e. “…confirm a transfer of the communication session”. Further, the network used may be a cellular or wireless network. As such, the chat message is sent/received over a cellular/wireless network, and as such, the chat message is a SMS message, i.e. “transmitting a short messaging service (SMS) request”); and
receiving a first response from the first mobile device and a second response from the client device that each indicate that the transfer is confirmed (see Paluch; paragraph 0101; Paluch discloses prompting to confirm the transfer of the chat session and confirming the transfer, i.e. “a response that indicates that the transfer is confirmed”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Youssefian and Paluch because they both disclose features of transferring a data/communication session, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of confirmation of a transfer as taught by Paluch into the system of Youssefian in order to provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the server to update information so that the target device receives all messages for the chat session and not the current device (see Paluch; paragraphs 0101 and 0102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Fusenig (U.S. 2018/0109517 A1) discloses transmitting a verification code to both the primary device and the secondary device.
Armstrong et al. (U.S. 2022/0398289 A1) discloses a second device scanning a QR code with the first device.
Meganathan et al. (U.S. 2019/0104161 A1) discloses a mobile device can match a QR code to a third device.
Fisi et al. (U.S. 11,962,655 B1) discloses a communication switching from one or more user devices and communication channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 08/20/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights