DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Applicants’ amendment, filed 04/20/2026, was received and entered. As the results, independent claims 1, 10 and 20 were amended with the features of “sending, to a second device, a video stream captured, at least in part, in a continuous manner, by a camera of a first device” and establish the bi-directional connection between … on receiving an indication of acceptance of the bi-directional connection originating from the second device… Based on the features added to claims 1, 10 and 20, updated searches were performed. New reference was also found for rejections to claims in the following Office Action. Also, new claims 23-25 were added in this amendment. Dependent claims 3 and 15 were previous cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-14 and 16-25 are pending in this application at this time.
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, 10, 16-17, 20, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Efrati (US 2013/0223436).
Regarding claim 1, Efrati teaches a system (i.e., IP telephone system 120, as shown in figures 1 and 2) comprising:
one or more processors (i.e., one or multiple processors 150; para. [0028]-[0030]) configured to cause the system at least to:
send, to a second device, a video stream captured, at least in part, in a continuous manner by a camera of a first device (i.e., calling party’s telephone device (first device) is used to capture the video stream as a recorded video message and then to deliver it to the called party’s telephone device (second device); para. [0044]);
send, to the second device, an audio stream captured by the first device (i.e., a spoken message provided by the calling party and delivered and played to the called party; para. [0041]-[0042]);
send, to the second device, a request to establish a bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device (i.e., a push notification service message includes the display of “Accept” or “Decline” buttons or icons (as a request to establish a bi-directional connection) sent to the called party’s telephone device; para. [0054]);
wherein sending the video stream causes displaying of the video stream on the second device to notify a user associated with the second device of the request to establish the bi-directional connection (i.e., viewing the message and responding to the displayed message, the user could press one of “Accept” and ”Decline” buttons to answer to either reject the incoming call request; para. [0054], [0056]-[0058], [0067] and [0069]);
establish the bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device based, at least in part, on receiving an indication of acceptance of the bi- directional connection originating from the second device (i.e., if the called party decides to accept the call, the calling party is bridged and connected between the calling party and called party’s telephone device; para. [0058] and [0075]); and
receiving audio captured by the second device (i.e., receiving spoken input provided by the called party; para. [0074]).
Regarding claim 10, Efrati teaches a method (i.e., IP telephone system 120, as shown in figures 1 and 2, performed a method as shown in flow charts in figures 4-6) comprising:
send, to a second device, a video stream captured, at least in part, in a continuous manner by a camera of a first device (i.e., calling party’s telephone device (first device) is used to capture the video stream as a recorded video message and then to deliver it to the called party’s telephone device (second device); para. [0044]);
send, to the second device, an audio stream captured by the first device (i.e., a spoken message provided by the calling party and delivered and played to the called party; para. [0041]-[0042]);
send, to the second device, a request to establish a bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device (i.e., a push notification service message includes the display of “Accept” or “Decline” buttons or icons (as a request to establish a bi-directional connection) sent to the called party’s telephone device; para. [0054]);
wherein sending the video stream causes displaying of the video stream on the second device to notify a user associated with the second device of the request to establish the bi-directional connection (i.e., viewing the message and responding to the displayed message, the user could press one of “Accept” and ”Decline” buttons to answer to either reject the incoming call request; para. [0054], [0056]-[0058], [0067] and [0069]);
establish the bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device based, at least in part, on receiving an indication of acceptance of the bi- directional connection originating from the second device (i.e., if the called party decides to accept the call, the calling party is bridged and connected between the calling party and called party’s telephone device; para. [0058] and [0075]); and
receiving audio captured by the second device (i.e., receiving spoken input provided by the called party; para. [0074]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Efrati teaches the IP telephone devices used by both caller and called parties to send video data or audio data to each other as discussed above. Efrati further teaches the type of IP telephone devices could also be cellular phones or portable computing device than run a software application that enable the devise to act as IP telephones (para. [0018] and [0023]). Therefore, the IP devices performed as cellular phones or the like to send the video data or audio data to each other via the wireless connections.
Regarding claim 20, Efrati teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having instructions recorded thereon (i.e., memory 154 of a IP telephone system 200 storing software routine 162 as instructions, as shown in figures 1 and 2; para. [0031]-[0033]), the instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causing the one or more processors to perform operations (i.e., one or multiple processors 150; para. [0028]-[0030]) comprising:
send, to a second device, a video stream captured, at least in part, in a continuous manner by a camera of a first device (i.e., calling party’s telephone device (first device) is used to capture the video stream as a recorded video message and then to deliver it to the called party’s telephone device (second device); para. [0044]);
send, to the second device, an audio stream captured by the first device (i.e., a spoken message provided by the calling party and delivered and played to the called party; para. [0041]-[0042]);
send, to the second device, a request to establish a bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device (i.e., a push notification service message includes the display of “Accept” or “Decline” buttons or icons (as a request to establish a bi-directional connection) sent to the called party’s telephone device; para. [0054]);
wherein sending the video stream causes displaying of the video stream on the second device to notify a user associated with the second device of the request to establish the bi-directional connection (i.e., viewing the message and responding to the displayed message, the user could press one of “Accept” and ”Decline” buttons to answer to either reject the incoming call request; para. [0054], [0056]-[0058], [0067] and [0069]);
establish the bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device based, at least in part, on receiving an indication of acceptance of the bi- directional connection originating from the second device (i.e., if the called party decides to accept the call, the calling party is bridged and connected between the calling party and called party’s telephone device; para. [0058] and [0075]); and
receiving audio captured by the second device (i.e., receiving spoken input provided by the called party; para. [0074]).
Regarding claim 22, Efrati further teaches the calling party’s announcement or message (i.e., the recorded video message), being displayed or played to the called party before or while the called party’s telephone beings ringing (para. [0044], [0058]). Efrati further teaches the feature of allowing the called party to provide spoken input while at least a portion of the recorded video message being displayed or played para. [0073]-[0074).
Regarding claim 25, Efrati teaches a system (i.e., IP telephone system 120, as shown in figures 1 and 2) comprising: one or more processors (i.e., one or multiple processors 150; para. [0028]-[0030])) configured to cause the system at least to:
provide, to a second device, (i) a request to establish a bi-directional connection between a first device and the second device (i.e., a push notification service message includes the display of “Accept” or “Decline” buttons or icons (as a request to establish a bi-directional connection) sent to the called party’s telephone device; para. [0054]) and (ii) a video stream that is captured by a camera of the first device, at least in part, in a continuous manner (i.e., calling party’s telephone device (first device) is used to capture the video stream as a recorded video message and then to deliver it to the called party’s telephone device (second device); para. [0044]), wherein the video stream is displayed via a user interface of the second device (i.e., viewing the message and responding to the displayed message, the user could press one of “Accept” and ”Decline” buttons to answer to either reject the incoming call request; para. [0054], [0056]-[0058], [0067] and [0069]); and
after receiving an indication of connection establishment acceptance originating from the second device, establishing the bi-directional connection between the first device and the second device (i.e., if the called party decides to accept the call, the called party pressed the “accept” button on the user interface (display) on the called party’s device, the incoming call from the calling party is bridged and connected between the calling party and called party’s telephone devices; para. [0058] and [0075]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati (Pub. US 2013/0223436) in view Kumar (US 2011/017667 as recited in the previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 11 and 18, Efrati teaches all subject matters as claimed above, except for the features of performing a facial recognition operation on an image from the video stream captured by the camera of the first device; identifying user information based, at least in part, on the facial recognition operation; and sending the user information to the second device. However, Kumar teaches a system comprising a
calling party communication device 50, called party communication device 70 and
biometric communication system 105, as shown in figure 1. When a calling party
initiates a call using the calling party communication device 50, the calling party image
or video (as facial recognition data) is captured by a biometric input 50 on the calling
party communication device 50 and transmitted to the biometric communication system 105 (para. [0019] and [0022]). The biometric ID application 110 utilizes the biometric information input by the calling party to validate or to authenticate the biometric information of the calling party by querying biometric database 115 located in the biometric communication system 105. If there is a match, a user profile is identified, retrieved and provided to the called party communication device 70 (para. [0023]-[0024]). The user profile contains the actual name of the calling party (read on user information). The actual name of the calling party or the user information is displayed on the called party communication device 70 (para. [0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of identifying
user information, such as a profile containing the actual name of the calling party and
transmitting the profile containing the actual name of the calling party to the second
device, as taught by Kumar, into view of An in order to display the authenticated caller
identification information to the called party associated with the second device.
Regarding claim 4, Kumar further teaches the feature of the claim, such as the biometric ID application 10 to identify a corresponding user profile(s) (as the user information being indicative data to be displayed on the second device) and to provide the calling party user profile to a called party communication device for displaying and viewing (para. [0023]-[0026] and [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as the
called party communication device 70 received the user profile contains the actual
name of the calling party (read on user information) from the biometric ID application
110 (para. [0024]). The actual name of the calling party or the user information is
displayed on the called party communication device 70 (para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Kumar further teaches the biometric ID application 110
utilizes the biometric information (i.e., an image included a face of the calling party)
input by the calling party to validate or to authenticate the biometric information of the
calling party by querying biometric database 115 located in the biometric
communication system 105. If there is a match, a user profile is identified, retrieved and
provided to the called party communication device 70 (para. [0023]-[0024]). The user
profile contains the actual name of the calling party (read on user information).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati (Pub. US 2013/0223436) in view of Kumar (US 2011/017667), as applied to claims 1-2, 10-11 and 13 above, and further in view of Jackson et al. (US 2009/0225745 also recited in the previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kumar teaches the feature of identifying a user profile based on the image or face of the calling party as discussed in the rejection of 2 above. Kumar, in combination of Efrati, failed to clearly teach the feature of wherein the second device performs an action based, at least in part, on the user profile, the action comprising announcing, through a speaker of the second device, a text identifier associated with the user profile via at least one of a voice generator or a speech synthesizer. However, Jackson et al. (hereinafter "Jackson") teaches a "talking caller identification service" implemented on a called device. Jackson further teaches a text-based caller identification information (text identifier) is translated, by the called device, into an audible ringtone using a text-to-speech synthesizer in order to alert a user of the called device (para. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of wherein the second device performs an action based, at least in part, on the user profile, the action comprising announcing, through a speaker of the second device, a text identifier associated with the user profile via at least one of a voice generator or a speech synthesizer, as taught by Jackson, into view of Efrati and Kumar in order to alert a user of the called device on the incoming call.
Claims 6-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati (US 2013/0223436) in view of Kenoyer (Pub. US 2006/0259755 also recited in the previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 6, Efrati teaches all subject matters as claimed above, except for the feature of wherein the second device performs an action based, at least in part, on a failure to authenticate a user associated with the video stream. However, Kenoyer a videoconference environment 100 including a local videoconference system 102 coupled to a remote videoconference system 104 through a communication network 106, as shown in figure 1 (para. [0024]). Kenoyer further teaches the local videoconference system 102 (performed as a second device) which use biometrics authentication for authoring inbound videoconference requests over the network 106 from the remote videoconference system 104 (para. [0037]). Kenoyer further teaches the local videoconference system 102 as a videoconference system 200, shown in the figure 2, which includes a face match module 406 (figure 4) to access the biometric database 302 (figure 3) for biometrics information of authorized user faces. If the face match module 406 finds a match between the current captured facial image and an authorized user face from the biometrics database 302, the current user is automatically logged into the videoconference network. However, if no match is found (as a failure), then (the local videoconference system 200) denies (performed an action) the user to access the videoconference network (para. [0041]-[0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of wherein the second device performs an action based, at least in part, on a failure to authenticate a user associated with the video stream, as taught by Kenoyer, into view of Efrati in order to prevent the unauthorized user to participated into the video call.
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Kenoyer further teaches limitation of the claim such as the videoconference system 200, performed as the second device, to capture and send live video image in paragraph [0026]-[0027].
Claims 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efrati (Pub. US 2013/0223436) in view of Nakamura (US 2004/0057560).
Regarding claim 21, Efrati teaches the features of transmitting a message comprising a text, audio stream or video message along with a call request (push notification)(para. [0054] and [0067]). Nakamura teaches an image expressing transmission source information (i.e., image or streaming video converted from the image) captured by an image input unit 1 (camera) of the telephony device 91, as shown in figure 1 (para. [0178]-[0780]). Nakamura further teaches a sound input unit 3 (i.e., a microphone) of the telephony device 91 acquires sound expressing information (speak or voice) of the transmission source (caller) (para. [0185]). Nakamura further teaches the image expressing transmission source information and sound expressing information of the transmission source are multiplexed and outputted as multiplexed signal (para.[0208]) and transmitted to another telephone device (called party’s telephony device at a receiving side)(para.[0205]). Therefore, the combination of Efrati and Nakamura teach the message comprises the video stream, the audio stream and the request to establish the voice call connection.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Efrati teaches all subject matters as claimed above, except for the feature of wherein the video stream and the audio stream are sent as part of the request to establish the bi-directional connection. However, Nakamura teaches a telephone device 91, as shown in figure 1, performed as a calling device, comprising an image input unit 1 (i.e., a camera), a sound input unit 3 (i.e., a microphone), etc. (para. [0120]). Nakamura further teaches the telephone device 91 is hooked off to initiate a call by dialing a telephone number of a transmission destination (called party’s telephony device). The image input unit 1 (camera) of the telephony device 91 takes an image expressing transmission source information (i.e., image or streaming video converted from the image; para. [0178]-[0780]). Nakamura further teaches a sound input unit 3 (i.e., a microphone) of the telephony device 91 acquires sound expressing information (speak or voice) of the transmission source (caller) (para. [0185]). Nakamura further teaches the image expressing transmission source information and sound expressing information of the transmission source are multiplexed and outputted as multiplexed signal (para.[0208]) and transmitted to another telephone device (called party’s telephony device at a receiving side)(para.[0205]). Nakamura further teaches the called party’s telephony device displays the image expressing the transmission source information (converted streaming video) via an image display unit 4 (para. [0212]-[0213] and [0216]) and outputs sound expressing information of the transmission source via a sound output unit 5 (para. [0214] and [0216]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of wherein the video stream and the audio stream are sent as part of the request to establish the bi-directional connection, as taught by Nakamura, into view of Efrati in order to assist the called party to desire whether to answer the incoming call.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-14 and 16-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7510. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-7510 and E-mail address: BINH.TIEU@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, FAN S. TSANG can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
Any response to this action should be mailed or handed carry deliveries to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (FAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the FAIR system, see fitp://nair-direct.usoto.aqev. If you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Binh Kien Tieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Date: May 2026
Prosecution Insights