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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,273,483. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. When claims in the pending application are broader than the patented claims, the broad claims in the pending application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented narrow claims, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQ 761. For example, claim 1 of the pending application has the same limitations as claim 1 of the patent except for the limitations directed to a category of the incoming call. Therefore, claim 1 of the pending application is broader than claim 1 of the patent. Additionally, in the pending application dependent claims 5 and 7 recite the limitations of determining a category of the incoming call, as mapped on the table below. A person of ordinary skill in the art would look to the combined teachings of the pending claims to arrive at the patented invention.
The remaining independent claims of the instant application recite similar subject matter and are thereby rejected for the same reasons.
US APP #19/171,145 US PAT #12,273,483
1. At least one computer-readable medium, excluding transitory signals and carrying instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receive, prior to acceptance of an incoming communication from a wireless device, early communication information comprising audio information, visual information, or both, associated with the wireless device;
assign a relative priority of the incoming communication based at least in part on the early communication information of the incoming communication;
receive after acceptance of the incoming communication from the wireless device, ongoing communication information associated with the incoming communication; and
adjust the relative priority of the incoming communication using the ongoing communication information associated with the incoming communication.
5. The at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determine a category of the incoming communication based at least in part on the early communication information.
7. The at least one computer-readable medium of claim 5: wherein the early communication information includes at least one photo or video collected via the wireless device and audio information collected via the wireless device; and wherein determining the category of the incoming communication causes the computing system to apply a trained machine learning model to the at least one photo or video and the audio information to identify a purpose or topic associated with the incoming communication.
1. At least one computer-readable medium, excluding transitory signals and carrying instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations to categorize a received call, the operations comprising:
receive, at a network server, from a calling device, a call;
receive, at the network server, before acceptance of the call, early call information, wherein the early call information is different from the call, and wherein the early call information includes audio information, visual information, or both, associated with the calling device;
determine, at the network server, a category of the received call based at least in part on the early call information;
assign, at the network server, a relative priority of the receive call based on the determined category of the received call;
receive, at the network server, after acceptance of the call, ongoing call information associated with the received call; and
adjust, at the network server, the determined category of the received call using the ongoing call information, wherein adjusting the determined category of the received call is used to adjust a corresponding response to the received call.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one computer-readable medium, excluding transitory signals and carrying instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations, which is a manufacture which is a statutory category of invention. In Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of evaluating information associated with an incoming communication to determine and modify a relative priority of the communication. Specifically, the claim receives information, evaluates the information to assign the priority, receives additional information and evaluates the additional information. These limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. In Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The preamble recites “non-transitory computer readable medium” method which is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. In Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. Again, the steps of “receiving early communication information, assigning a relative priority, receiving additional information and adjusting the relative priority” remain insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, limitations do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and do not apply any additional elements which amount to significantly more. Claims 2-5 are also ineligible.
With respect to claim 8, Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a computer implemented method, which is a process which is a statutory category of invention. In Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim recites in part “receiving early communication information, determining a category, assigning a relative priority and provisioning resources”. These limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. In Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The preamble recites “a computer-implemented” method which is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. In Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. Again, the steps of “receiving early communication information, determining a category, assigning a relative priority and provisioning resources” remain insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, limitations do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are dependent on claim 8 and do not apply any additional elements which amount to significantly more. Claims 9-11 and 13-14 are also ineligible.
With respect to claim 15, Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a computer implemented method, which is a process which is a statutory category of invention. In Step 2A Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. The claim recites in part “receiving early communication information, assigning a relative priority, receiving ongoing communication information and adjusted the relative priority”. These limitations fall into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited steps are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. In Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The preamble recites “a computer-implemented” method which is recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. In Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. Again, the steps of “receiving early communication information, assigning a relative priority, receiving ongoing communication information and adjusted the relative priority”. These limitations fall into the “mental process” remain insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, limitations do not amount to significantly more. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible. Claims 16-19 are dependent upon claim 15 and do not apply any additional elements which amount to significantly more. Claims 16-19 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330596 (“Jawaharlal et al.”).
Regarding claim 1, Jawaharlal et al. discloses At least one computer-readable medium, excluding transitory signals and carrying instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising ([0012] the present invention may be a computer program product which includes a computer readable storage medium):
receive, prior to acceptance of an incoming communication from a wireless device, early communication information comprising audio information, visual information, or both, associated with the wireless device ([0005] with the attempted telephone call data set including a called party identifier code and a first purpose code identifying the first message purpose, [0044] when a caller makes a call to a recipient, a short text message and a numeric identifier (also referred to as identifier) are initiated by the caller and sent with the call to be displayed on the receiver's phone. Both the message and the identifier are sent, with other call set-up information, to the control plane);
assign a relative priority of the incoming communication based at least in part on the early communication information of the incoming communication ([0077] (i) in case of two simultaneous incoming calls for say person A, the control plane can decide based on the priority of the identifiers; (ii) control plane can block any promotional calls during peak hours or (iii) each user can set their preferred or ‘Do Not Disturb Me’ timings, so the control plane will only allow important calls to be routed during that time); and
receive after acceptance of the incoming communication from the wireless device, ongoing communication information associated with the incoming communication (fig. 2, called phone device decides whether to answer at S285 and audio data of call is communicated over communication path at S290); and
adjust the relative priority of the incoming communication using the ongoing communication information associated with the incoming communication ([0058] Consider a case where a user receives a call showing as coming from a particular banking institution and identified as a “service call”. After answering the call, if the user finds out that the call is for promotions rather than a service call, the user can file a complaint against the offending institution, as the caller can modify only the sub-identifier but can modify neither the general identifier (“1” (bank)) nor the trademark).
Regarding claims 2, and 16, Jawaharlal et al. discloses the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: route the incoming communication to a receiving device, wherein the receiving device is selected from a set of receiving devices based on the relative priority of the incoming communication ([0039] Processing proceeds to operation S275, where routing mod 308 determines the identity of the device(s) (if any) to which the attempted telephone call will be routed, based at least in part on the call purpose related user preference information. Example routing options (i) called telephone 106; (ii) some other device(s), specified in the call purpose related user preference information for called telephone 106; or (iii) whether the call will be refused, routed to no devices).
Regarding claim 5, Jawaharlal et al. discloses the at least one computer readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determine a category of the incoming communication based at least in part on the early communication information ([0077] (i) in case of two simultaneous incoming calls for say person A, the control plane can decide based on the priority of the identifiers; (ii) control plane can block any promotional calls during peak hours or (iii) each user can set their preferred or ‘Do Not Disturb Me’ timings, so the control plane will only allow important calls to be routed during that time).
Regarding claim 8, Jawaharlal et al. discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, prior to acceptance of an incoming communication from a wireless device, early call information comprising audio information, visual information, or both, associated with the wireless device ([0005] with the attempted telephone call data set including a called party identifier code and a first purpose code identifying the first message purpose, [0044] when a caller makes a call to a recipient, a short text message and a numeric identifier (also referred to as identifier) are initiated by the caller and sent with the call to be displayed on the receiver's phone. Both the message and the identifier are sent, with other call set-up information, to the control plane);
determining a category of the incoming communication based at least in part on the determined category of the incoming communication ([0035] calls are categorized using codes and sub codes as illustrated in the Table in para. [0035] which includes non-emergency and emergency); and
assigning a relative priority of the incoming communication based on the determined category of the incoming communication ([0077] (i) in case of two simultaneous incoming calls for say person A, the control plane can decide based on the priority of the identifiers; (ii) control plane can block any promotional calls during peak hours or (iii) each user can set their preferred or ‘Do Not Disturb Me’ timings, so the control plane will only allow important calls to be routed during that time); and
provisioning a set of deployable resources for responding to the incoming communication based on the relative priority and the determined category of the incoming communication ([0039] (ii) selectively routing the attempted message through the message network based, at least in part, on the first purpose code).
Regarding claim 10, Jawaharlal et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein determining the category of the incoming call includes selecting the category from a set of predetermined call categories including emergency and non-emergency call categories ([0035] calls are categorized using codes and sub codes as illustrated in the Table in para. [0035] which includes non-emergency and emergency).
Regarding claim 14, Jawaharlal et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving, from the wireless device, additional call information associated with the incoming call; determining, based on the additional call information and the early call information, a different category of the incoming call; and modifying the assigned relative priority of the incoming call based on the different category of the incoming call ([0058] Consider a case where a user receives a call showing as coming from a particular banking institution, and identified as a “service call”. After answering the call, if the user finds out that the call is for promotions rather than a service call, the user can file a complaint against the offending institution, as the caller can modify only the sub-identifier but can modify neither the general identifier (“1” (bank)) nor the trademark.).
Regarding claim 15, Jawaharlal et al. discloses a computer implemented method comprising (core plane subsystem fig. 3) comprising:
receive, prior to acceptance of an incoming communication from a wireless device, early communication information comprising audio information, visual information, or both, associated with the wireless device ([0005] with the attempted telephone call data set including a called party identifier code and a first purpose code identifying the first message purpose, [0044] when a caller makes a call to a recipient, a short text message and a numeric identifier (also referred to as identifier) are initiated by the caller and sent with the call to be displayed on the receiver's phone. Both the message and the identifier are sent, with other call set-up information, to the control plane);
assign a relative priority of the incoming communication based at least in part on the early communication information of the incoming communication ([0077] (i) in case of two simultaneous incoming calls for say person A, the control plane can decide based on the priority of the identifiers; (ii) control plane can block any promotional calls during peak hours or (iii) each user can set their preferred or ‘Do Not Disturb Me’ timings, so the control plane will only allow important calls to be routed during that time); and
receive after acceptance of the incoming communication from the wireless device, ongoing communication information associated with the incoming communication (fig. 2, called phone device decides whether to answer at S285 and audio data of call is communicated over communication path at S290); and
adjust the relative priority of the incoming communication using the ongoing communication information associated with the incoming communication ([0058] Consider a case where a user receives a call showing as coming from a particular banking institution and identified as a “service call”. After answering the call, if the user finds out that the call is for promotions rather than a service call, the user can file a complaint against the offending institution, as the caller can modify only the sub-identifier but can modify neither the general identifier (“1” (bank)) nor the trademark).
Regarding claim 19, Jawaharlal et al. discloses the computer implemented method of claim 15, wherein the at least one call characteristic is identified based on detecting a keyword or phrase in the audio information and detecting an image in the visual information (Jawaharlal, [0045]The short text message explains the purpose of the call (for example “urgent-daddy”, “new bank card”, “mobile account verification”, etc.). The text message is typed or selected from a pre-defined set of messages. Alternatively, the caller can speak, and the audio is converted to text).
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 3, 4, 9, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330596 (“Jawaharlal et al.”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0152693 (“Edwards et al.”).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 17, Jawaharlal et al. does not specify the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the early communication information includes sensor data collected via the wireless device before or during Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) setup or device information associated with the wireless device.
In a similar field of endeavor, Edwards et al. discloses utilizing call characteristic information to determine queue positions for calls. An input component may include a sensor for sensing information (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) component, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or an actuator) ([0067]). The method takes all the input information and associates weights to the different factors and determines a queue position (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jawaharlal et al. to include sensor information as described in Edwards et al. in order to provide the call handling method additional context information for making a routing decision.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Jawaharlal et al. does not specify the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1: wherein the early communication information includes sensor data collected via the wireless device or a wearable device associated with the wireless device; and wherein the sensor data includes data associated with at least one of: an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a thermometer, a hygrometer, or a photodiode.
In a similar field of endeavor, Edwards et al. discloses utilizing call characteristic information to determine queue positions for calls. An input component may include a sensor for sensing information (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) component, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or an actuator) ([0067]). The method takes all the input information and associates weights to the different factors and determines a queue position (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jawaharlal et al. to include sensor information as described in Edwards et al. in order to provide the call handling method additional context information for making a routing decision.
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330596 (“Jawaharlal et al.”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0295234 (“Kumar”).
Regarding claim 13, Jawaharlal et al. does not specify the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein determining the category of the incoming call is based on detecting at least one keyword or phrase in the early call information or determining a sentiment or mood of a caller.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kumar also discloses gathering early call information for determining call handling. The recipient client may include a call reason monitor which may analyze the text message and determine a call priority before displaying it on the called device during the call ringing. The call reason monitor may perform text mining of the messages received during the incoming call using sentiment analysis, pre-defined keywords stored in any client module and the like ([0030]). The analysis is then used to determine call priority ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to gather sentiment data as part of the call category as disclosed by Kumar because it provides an additional layer for categorizing call urgency, such as for an emergency or non-emergency category.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330596 (“Jawaharlal et al.”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0152693 (“Edwards et al.”) and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0044017 (“Haltom”).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Jawaharlal et al. does not specify the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein determining the category of the incoming communication causes the computing system to: calculate at least one confidence score based on the early communication information, wherein the at least one confidence score indicates a likelihood that the incoming communication corresponds to a communication category, and wherein the early communication information includes sensor data from multiple sensors associated with the wireless device; and compare the at least one confidence score to a threshold score, wherein, when the at least one confidence score exceeds the threshold score, a category corresponding to the at least one confidence score is determined.
In a similar field of endeavor, Edwards et al. discloses utilizing call characteristic information to determine queue positions for calls. An input component may include a sensor for sensing information (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) component, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and/or an actuator) ([0067]). The method takes all the input information and associates weights to the different factors and determines a queue position (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jawaharlal et al. to include sensor information as described in Edwards et al. in order to provide the call handling method additional context information for making a routing decision.
Additionally, Haltom also discloses utilizing the various call characteristic information and early call information to determine handling of an incoming call. When new calls arrive at the network, the system determines a level of confidence, for the calls, that the calls are denial-of-service attack calls based on the call statistics. The information from confidence metric server may include confidence level/score that the call is a denial-of-service attack call. The confidence level/score may cause the call center agent to ask additional questions to the caller, to provide service to caller, and/or to forward the call elsewhere for additional processing. If the confidence level is greater than a threshold or less than or equal to a threshold, the monitoring device may determine to route the call to an agent or block the call.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a confidence metric when categorizing call information in Jawaharlal et al. in view of Edwards et al. in order to build trending data, and/or training its analysis system to avoid false positives in detecting call categories.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330596 (“Jawaharlal et al.”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0262614 (“Drake et al.”).
Regarding claim 7, Jawaharlal et al. does not specify the at least one computer-readable medium of claim 1: wherein the early call information includes at least one photo or video collected via the wireless device and audio information collected via the wireless device; and wherein determining the category of the incoming communications causes the computing system to apply a trained machine learning model to the at least one photo or video and the audio information to identify the purpose or topic associated with the incoming communication.
In a similar field of endeavor, Drake et al. also discloses enhanced early call information. The presentation of an enhancement content asset along with an incoming communication alert may provide additional information regarding the nature of the incoming communication. The enhancement content asset may be in the form of a text message, a social media feed, a rich media file, audio content, still image content, video content, multimedia content, web page scripts, uniform resource locators (URLs), other types of links to content and/or applications, and/or so forth that provide further information or context for an incoming communication ([0101]). A filter module may analyze and screen enhancement content. The filter module 216 may use image, audio, and/or text recognition algorithms, or machine learning algorithms, to recognize offensive content for filtering ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide video or photo collected via the wireless device as disclosed by Drake et al. because the enhancement content asset, video and/or image, may serve to provide additional context for the recipient to determine whether to accept or reject the incoming communication.
Regarding claim 12, Jawaharlal et al. does not specify the computer-implemented method of claim 8: wherein the early call information includes at least one photo or video collected via the wireless device and audio information collected via the wireless device; and wherein determining the category of the incoming communication includes applying a trained machine learning model to the at least one photo or video and the audio information to identify a purpose or topic associated with the incoming communication.
In a similar field of endeavor, Drake et al. also discloses enhanced early call information. The presentation of an enhancement content asset along with an incoming communication alert may provide additional information regarding the nature of the incoming communication. The enhancement content asset may be in the form of a text message, a social media feed, a rich media file, audio content, still image content, video content, multimedia content, web page scripts, uniform resource locators (URLs), other types of links to content and/or applications, and/or so forth that provide further information or context for an incoming communication ([0101]). A filter module may analyze and screen enhancement content. The filter module 216 may use image, audio, and/or text recognition algorithms, or machine learning algorithms, to recognize offensive content for filtering ([0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide video or photo collected via the wireless device as disclosed by Drake et al. because the enhancement content asset, video and/or image, may serve to provide additional context for the recipient to determine whether to accept or reject the incoming communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIRAPON TULOP whose telephone number is (571)270-7491. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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.
/JIRAPON TULOP/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights