DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-33 and 35-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoops et al. (U.S. 2017/0359232 A1) in view of Cooper (U.S. 2015/0371237 A1).
Re claim 21, Stoops et al. disclose in Figures 1-7 a system to establish communication sessions (e.g. abstract and Figures 3-4), comprising: a data processing system having at least one processor coupled with memory, the data processing system to couple with a first computing device and a second computing device in a contact center environment, the data processing system to: establish, using registration information of the first computing device, a communication session between the data processing system and the first computing device (e.g. Figure 1 with registered device to the DSI and to the contact center and paragraphs [0044-0048 and 0099] wherein registered device has established communication with the CCB via DSI); receive, from the first computing device via the communication session, a request for service that identifies event information (e.g. paragraphs [0004-0007]); extend the communication session with the first computing device over a communication network to the second computing device (e.g. Figures 1-4 with user device in place of the registered device and paragraphs [0066 and 0099]); transmit the request for service from the first computing device to the second computing device in the contact center environment via the communication session (e.g. Figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0053-0057 and 0065] wherein the user device is communicated instead of the registered device); and communicate, via the communication session, response data generated by the second computing device based on the event information of the request for service (e.g. Figures 5-7 and paragraphs [0099 – 0101]). Stoops et al. fail to disclose the first computing device including at least one of a set top box and a smart TV. However, Cooper discloses the first computing device including at least one of a set top box and a smart TV (e.g. Figure 3 with TV and cable box). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add the first computing device including at least one of a set top box and a smart TV as seen in Cooper’s invention into Stoops et al.’s invention because it would enable to have flexible communication and operation.
Re claim 22, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to extend the communication session with the first computing device over the communication network to the second computing device in the contact center environment (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figures 1-4 and abstract wherein user device is communicated with the contact center environment).
Re claim 23, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the set top box communicatively coupled with a display (e.g. Cooper – Figure 3 with TV and cable box).
Re claim 24, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the first computing device having video display capability (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figures 2-4 with every registered devices typically have screen and Cooper – Figure 3 with TV and cable box).
Re claim 25, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the first computing device including an audio input, an audio output, a video input, and a video output (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figure 1 and paragraph [0035] and Cooper – Figure 3 with devices including mobile and TV).
Re claim 26, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to provide, to a mobile device associated with the first computing device, at least a portion of the response data from the communication session, responsive to establishment of a second communication session established between the mobile device and the second computing device in the contact center environment (e.g. Stoops et al. – abstract and Cooper – Figure 1 with the support center).
Re claim 27, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to provide, to a second communication session between a mobile device and the first computing device in the contact center environment, at least a portion of the response data from the communication session, responsive to an indication to transfer the request for service from the first communication device to the mobile device (e.g. Stoops et al. – abstract and Cooper – Figure 1 with the support center).
Re claim 28, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to: receive, from the first computing device via the communication session, the request for service identifying a fault condition on the first computing device; and communicate, via the communication session, the response data identifying diagnostic information generated by the second computing device for the first computing device based on the fault condition (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0029 and 0067-0068] and Cooper – paragraphs [0012 and 0022]).
Re claim 29, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to: receive, from the first computing device via the communication session, the request for service that identifies context information associated with a user of the first computing device; and communicate, via the communication session, the response data that identifies one or more tasks for the user to perform as identified by the second computing device using the context information (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0029, 0067-0068 and 0109]).
Re claim 30, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to: identify, using the registration information of the first computing device, the contact center environment with which to handle the request for service; and extend the communication session with the first computing device to the second computing device in the contact center environment identified using the registration information (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figure 1 with registered profile device 144 and paragraphs [0008-0010 and 0052] and Cooper – paragraph [0015, 0017, and 0026]).
Re claim 31, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose the data processing system to: receive, from the second computing device in the contact center environment, registration information of the second computing device; and extend the communication session with the first computing device to the second computing device in the contact center environment using the registration information (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figure 1 with registered profile device 144 and paragraphs [0008-0010 and 0052] and Cooper – paragraph [0015, 0017, and 0026]).
Re claim 32, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose an application executable on the first computing device to: transmit, to the data processing system, the registration information to establish the communication session between the first computing device and the data processing system (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figure 1 with registered profile device 144 and paragraphs [0008-0010 and 0052] and Cooper – paragraph [0015, 0017, and 0026]); identify, for the request for service, the event information (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0004-0007 and 0035]); transmit the request for service identifying the event information to the data processing system to extend the communication session with the first computing device over the communication network to the second computing device; and receive, via the communication session, the response data generated by the second computing device using the event information of the request for service (e.g. Stoops et al. – Figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0004-0007] and Cooper – Figure 2).
Re claim 33, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose an application on the first computing device to: receive, via an interaction on a prompt presented on a display, an indication to transfer the request for service from the first computing device to a mobile device associated with the first computing device; and provide, responsive to the indication to transfer, at least a portion of the response data to the mobile device for a second communication session between the mobile device and the second computing device to continue handling of the request for service service (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0061-0062 and 0109] and Cooper – paragraphs [0019-0020]).
Re claim 35, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose an application on the first computing device to: present, via a display, an address referencing a webpage, to enter on a mobile device for authentication with the second computing device; and provide, responsive to accessing the webpage referenced by the address to authenticate with the second computing device, at least a portion of the response data to the mobile device for a second communication session between the mobile device and the second computing device to continue handling of the request for service (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0061-0062 and 0109] and Cooper – paragraphs [0019-0020]).
Re claim 36, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose an application on the first computing device to: transmit, via the communication session, the request for service identifying a fault condition on the first computing device; and receive, via the communication session, the response data identifying diagnostic information generated by the second computing device for the first computing device using the fault (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0029 and 0067-0068] and Cooper – paragraphs [0012 and 0022]).
Re claim 37, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose an application on the first computing device to: transmit, via the communication session, the request for service identifying context information associated with a user of the first computing device; and receive, via the communication session, the response data identifying one or more tasks for the user to perform as identified by the second computing device using the context information (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0061-0062 and 0109] and Cooper – Figure 3).
Re claim 38, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper disclose an application on the first computing device to: present, via a display, a prompt for initiation of the request for service of the smart TV device corresponding to the first computing device; and transmit, responsive to interaction with the prompt, the request for service to the data processing system (e.g. Stoops et al. – paragraphs [0066 and 0076-0077] and Cooper – Figure 3).
Re claim 39, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 39 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21.
Re claim 40, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 26. Thus, claim 40 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 26.
Claim 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoops et al. (U.S. 2017/0359232 A1) in view of Cooper (U.S. 2015/0371237 A1) and further in view of Degaonkar et al. (U.S. 2018/0285234 A1).
Re claim 34, Stoops et al. in view of Cooper fail to disclose an application on the first computing device to: present, via a display, a quick response (QR) code for authenticating a mobile device with the second computing device to handle the request for service; and provide, responsive to the mobile device scanning the QR code to authenticate with the second computing device, at least a portion of the response data to the mobile device for a second communication session between the mobile device and the second computing device to continue handling of the request for service. However, Degaonkar et al. disclose an application on the first computing device to: present, via a display, a quick response (QR) code for authenticating a mobile device with the second computing device to handle the request for service; and provide, responsive to the mobile device scanning the QR code to authenticate with the second computing device, at least a portion of the response data to the mobile device for a second communication session between the mobile device and the second computing device to continue handling of the request for service (e.g. paragraphs [0280 and 0287 - 0290]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add an application on the first computing device to: present, via a display, a quick response (QR) code for authenticating a mobile device with the second computing device to handle the request for service; and provide, responsive to the mobile device scanning the QR code to authenticate with the second computing device, at least a portion of the response data to the mobile device for a second communication session between the mobile device and the second computing device to continue handling of the request for service as seen in Degaonkar et al.’s invention into Stoops et al. in view of Cooper’s invention because it would enable to have flexible and swift secure communication.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21-27 and 29-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 3-18, and 21 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,316,688. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,125. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,125 would anticipate every limitation of pending claim 21.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,219. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,991,219 would anticipate every limitation of pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20260281189-A1
US-20180285234-A1
US-20170359232-A1
US-20150371237-A1
US-20130024901-A1
US-20120036549-A1
US-20110313775-A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 am -3:30 pm.
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, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
/PHUOC H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights