DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/09/2026 has been entered.
1a. This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 01/09/2026. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions.
2. Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are amended.
Claims 4 and 6 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-24 are pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
A, Applicant argues that “Oohira does not teach "receiving, by a first computing device configured to count user device registrations for a plurality of computing devices, a message indicating that a user device has registered with a second computing device, or the plurality of computing devices" as in amended claim 1,” Remarks pages 7-8.
In response to A, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
B, Applicant argues that “Oohira does not teach ""based on the message [indicating that a user device has registered with a second computing device], determining, by the first computing device, that a quantity of user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device exceeds a threshold…. Oohira does not teach a device that performs both of these claim steps " as in amended claim 1,” Remarks pages 8-9.
In response to B, Examiner disagrees because Oohira discloses in paragraph [0043] receiving using S-CSCF server 13 (first computer device) an information indicating that terminal device 16 is registered on S-CSCF server 12 (second computer device); the message is also received at S-CSCF server 12 because it is registered at said server. In addition, using a predetermined state threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , Oohira, discloses in paragraphs [0048]-[0049] that the current state of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a threshold ( the preset threshold not less than a preset threshold is equated the number of user devices exceeds the threshold). As can be seen, the steps of receiving and the steps of determining is performed by the same server S-CSCF server 12. Finally, the S-CSCF management server 11 is not considered as the claimed first computing device, but P-CSCF server 13 is because P-CSCF server 13 that receives the message before the message is received by S-CSCF server 12.
C. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “claims 3, 5, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira in view of Merino Vazquez et al. (US 9,036,554 B2). Merino Vazquez does not overcome the deficiencies of Oohira discussed above.” As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira still teaches the limitation as it was cited in section B.
D. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira in view of Zhang et al. (US 2010/0169646 Al). Zhang does not overcome the deficiencies of Oohira discussed above .” As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira still teaches the limitation as it was cited in section B.
E. Applicant argues that The proposed combination, however, fails to teach “based on the information, comparing, by the first computing device, a quantity of user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device with a first threshold; comparing, by the first computing device, the quantity with a second threshold (emphasis added),” and “similar features to those discussed above with respect to claim 1,” as recited in claims 11, 18, and 21-23, Remarks pages 9-11.
In response to E, Regarding the arguments about limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1, the same rational cited for claim 1 applied also for claim 18. Regarding the argument about the comparison. The comparison with Oohira is related to a threshold about number of user registered in the second computer device (S-CSCF server 12). The comparison disclosed by Dahlen is about number user connected to the second device. There is no redundancy because the two comparisons are not comparing the same reason. Therefore, it makes sense that combining the two references for their respective comparison feature can be an efficiency reason. Dahlen does not have to teach two different comparisons of the quantity of the registrations with two different thresholds because Oohira is cited for the first comparison, Dahlen is only cited for teaching a second type of threshold, a limitation that is not teach by Oohira.
F. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “ Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira in view of Xu et al. (US 2012/0198085 Al),” Oohira does not teach that determining a quantity of user devices is "based on the message" as claimed and the alleged first computing device in Oohira (Oohira's P-CSCF server) does not perform the determining step. Additionally, Xu does not overcome the deficiencies of Oohira. Remarks page 12.
In response to F, Regarding the arguments about limitations similar to the limitations of claim 1, the same rational cited for claim 1 applied also for claim 13. Additionally, Xu does not have to overcome the deficiencies of Oohira. As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira still teaches the limitation as it was cited in section B.
G, Applicant argues that “Xu, however, does not teach or suggest determining a quantity of registered devices or using a quantity of registered devices in any way to determine its load equivalent weight. As noted above, Xu describes using "the utilization rate of available CPU, the size of available memory, the size of available disk, and the communication capability of available network" to determine its load equivalent weight Xu, [0025], [0050]. Thus, the cited references do not teach "based on the determination that the quantity of devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices exceeds a threshold, causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize the one or more second computing devices" as in claim 13, Remarks page 13.
In response to G, the Examiner disagrees because in different paragraphs [0025]-[0026]) in [0002]-[0003], Xu discloses by comparing a current weight to a previous weight a determination is made if the current weight is no less than a threshold ( no less than a threshold is equated to exceeded the threshold; when the current weight is no less that a threshold a DNS update message via an weight and priority field in the SRV record where the entities are reported ( the entities reported are equated to currently registered devices; in addition In [0056]-[0057] the case where the load is not reported to the DNS immediately which corresponds to deprioritize the registration in the DNS server.
H, Applicant argues that “The Office Action, however, provide no reasoning or citation as to how these two systems would be combined or why one of ordinary skill would have modified Oohira's periodic addition of a new S-CSCF (and subsequent redistribution of user devices to the new S-CSCF server) with the DNS messaging of Xu” Remarks page 13.
In response to H, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
I, Applicant argues that “Boettger does not overcome the deficiencies of the Oohira-Xu combination discussed above. Accordingly, dependent claim 15 is patentable over the asserted combination for at least the same reasons as its base claim 13 and further in view of the additional novel features recited therein. Additionally, Boettger does not teach "causing, based on a determination that the quantity [of devices that are currently registered to receive one or more services] exceeds a second threshold, deregistration of one or more devices of the devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices" as in claim 15, Remarks page 13.
In response to I, the Examiner disagrees because Boettger discloses in [0028] and [0032]
a wireless circuitry having a multi-SIM wireless communication that limits the number of UICCs 204 that are subscribed to first wireless network ( second computer device), where removable UICC 204A/B can switch to a different wireless communication network ( second computer device). By determining a number limit of UICCs device, a threshold is also determined. The Boetter ‘s threshold is considered as a second threshold because Oohira discloses a first threshold. And when the determined number exceed that limit, a threshold limit of quantity or the number subscribed devices is also determined.
J, Applicant argues that “ Boettger does not teach "causing, based on a determination that the quantity [of devices that are currently registered to receive one or more services] exceeds a second threshold, deregistration of one or more devices of the devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices" as in claim 15. Boettger describes a dual SIM wireless device [the alleged user device] which may include multiple UICCs [universal integrated circuit card]. See, e.g., Boettger, [0028], FIG. 2A. "[T]he physical size and design" of a wireless device may limit the number of UICCs that can be supported by the device, and the number of UICCs and SIM cards limits the number of wireless network registrations that are possible for the device. Boettger, [0032], [0028]. First, Boettger does not teach "a determination that the quantity [of devices that are currently registered to receive one or more services] exceeds a second threshold." The Office Action relies on the Boettger wireless device's physical limitation on the number of UICCs. Office Action, p. 27. Boettger, however, does not teach a determination that the number of UICCs exceeds a threshold, and even if it did, the Boettger wireless device could never exceed such a threshold because the alleged threshold is based on the physical limitations of the device,” Remark page 13.
In response to J, the Examiner disagrees because Boettger discloses in [0028] and [0032]
a wireless circuitry having a multi-SIM wireless communication that limits the number of UICCs 204 that are subscribed to first wireless network ( second computer device), where removable UICC 204A/B can switch to a different wireless communication network ( second computer device). By determining a number limit of UICCs device, a threshold is also determined. And when the determined number exceed that limit, a threshold limit of quantity or the number subscribed devices is also determined. The physical size and design" of a wireless device may limit the number of UICCs can limit also limit the number of SIM cards, but the focus here is the number of devices registered.
K, Applicant argues that “Boettger does not teach "deregistration of one or more devices of the devices that are currently registered" as claimed. Even if Boettger taught making a determination as claimed, there is no teaching in Boettger of deregistering devices that are already registered. Boettger may prevent additional network connections if all of the connections for the Boettger wireless device are already in use, but Boetter does not cause deregistration of a registered connection, as disclosed in claim 15. Remarks page 14.
In response to K, the Examiner disagrees because a secondary reference is used because the primary reference does not teach the third claim step. And the motivation to combine them is to perform deregistration of a device efficiently by switching to a different radio telecommunication networks when a threshold of registered UEs is reached. By switching to the different radio telecommunication networks, the device has to be registered to a previous radio telecommunication networks.
L, Applicant argues that “Zhang does not overcome the deficiencies of the Oohira-Xu combination, as disclosed in claim 16. Remarks page 14.
In response to L, the Examiner disagrees because Zhang does not have to overcome the deficiencies of Oohira-Xu. As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira-Xu still teach the limitation as it was cited in sections above.
M. Applicant argues that Merino Vazquez does not overcome the deficiencies of the Oohira-Xu combination, as disclosed in claim 17. Remarks page 14.
In response to M, the Examiner disagrees because Merino Vazquez does not have to overcome the deficiencies of Oohira-Xu. As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira-Xu still teach the limitation as it was cited in sections above.
N. Applicant argues that Seo does not overcome the deficiencies of the Oohira-Dahlen combination. Remarks page 14.
In response to N, the Examiner disagrees because Seo does not have to overcome the deficiencies of Oohira-Dahlen. As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira-Xu still teach the limitation as it was cited in sections above.
O. Applicant argues that Seo does not teach "causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device" as in claim 19. Seo describes that "[i]n response to a request for a DNS address ... the control unit 210 checks whether the requested DNS address is present in the DNS cache, and if the requested DNS address is present in the DNS cache, adjusts the priority of the requested DNS address and updates the DNS cache according to the adjusted priority." Seo, [0044]. "If the requested DNS address is not present in the DNS cache, the control unit 210 stores the requested DNS address in the DNS cache. The control unit 210 deletes a DNS address with a low priority from the DNS cache after storage of the requested DNS address. The control unit 210 assigns priority to DNS addresses on the basis of a recent access or use or a frequency of access or use." Seo, [0044]. In other words, Seo describes giving a high priority to a DNS address based on recent access or frequency of access and giving a low priority to a DNS address based on lack of access or infrequent access. Seo does not teach adjusting the priority of a DNS address based on a threshold comparison and does not teach lowering the priority of a DNS address that has been recently requested. Thus, Seo does not teach "causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device" as claimed, Remarks page 15.
In response to O, the Examiner disagrees because Seo teaches in [0044] if DNS address is not present, the priority is assigned being low ( low priority is equated to deprioritize). The Examiner has interpreted low priority as depriotizing. By changing a high to a low priority, a deprioritizing is made, an operation that is a change of priority. the Examiner disagrees because . adjusting the priority of a DNS address based on a threshold comparison is not claimed; What is claimed is causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device. And when Seo teaches in [0044] if DNS address is not present, the priority is assigned being low ( low priority is equated to deprioritize). The Examiner has interpreted low priority as depriotize.
P. Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not overcome the deficiencies of the Oohira-Dahlen combination, as recited in claim 20. Remarks page 15.
In response to P, the Examiner disagrees because Yamamoto does not have to overcome the deficiencies of Oohira-Dahlen. As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira-Xu still teach the limitation as it was cited in sections above.
Q. Applicant argues that L'Heureux does not overcome the deficiencies of Oohira, as recited in claim 24. Remarks page 16.
In response to Q, the Examiner disagrees because L'Heureux does not have to overcome the deficiencies of Oohira-Dahlen. As it was stated above, Applicant's arguments about the limitations that are amended have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The limitations regarding the parts of the claim that are not amended, Oohira-Xu still teach the limitation as it was cited in sections above.
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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Oohira et al. (hereinafter “Oohira”) (US 2016/0302055 A1) in view of Duffy et al. (hereinafter “Duffy”) (US 9,571,588 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Oohira A method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device configured to manage user device registrations for a plurality of computing devices ( S-CSCF server 13 is disclosed performing a registration process for uses by establishing, authenticating users connections, authenticating users, establishing sessions such steps are equated by the Examiners as managing the user’s registrations of several user devices (Oohira, [0040]-[0042)), a message indicating that a user device has registered with a second computing device of the plurality of computing devices (receiving using S-CSCF server 13 (first computer device) an information indicating that terminal device 16 is registered on S-CSCF server 12 (second computer device) (Oohira, [0043]));
based on the message, determining, by the first computing device, that a quantity of user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device exceeds a threshold (using a predetermined state threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , the current state of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a threshold ( the preset threshold not less than a preset threshold is equated the number of user devices exceeds the threshold); this is subsequent to the information received from P-CSCF server 13 (first computer server) as it is disclosed in [0048] (Oohira, [0048]-[0049]); in [0043] the registration includes an association of the user ID that is associated the user (or user device; registration can include interpretation of registered user devices)); and
based on the determination that the quantity of the user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device exceeds a threshold, causing at least one user device, of the user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device, to register with a third computing device, of the plurality of computing devices, instead of the second computing device, for one or more services (using a predetermined state threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , the current state of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a preset threshold ( the preset of threshold not less than a preset threshold is equated the number of user devices exceeds the threshold), another S-CSFC server is added and the information of user is added to the new S-CFCF server 12 ( new CSFC server 12 is equated to a third computer device) (Oohira, 0049]; [0051])).
Oohira does not disclose manage user device registrations was count user device registrations.
Duffy discloses count user device registrations ( an edge device being configured to collect a count registrations of user devices , Duffy, claim 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Duffy’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to count the registration of devices efficiently by using an edge device for doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the second computing device comprises a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) computing device (S-CSCF server 12 ( new CSFC server 12 is equated to a second computer device) (Oohira, 0049])).
Regarding claim 9, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: causing, after the determining, a confirmation message to be sent to the user device, wherein the confirmation message confirms registration with at least one Call Session Control Function (CSCF) device ( Next, the S-CSCF server 12 transmits the user registration information to the P-CSCF server 13 and causes the P-CSCF server 13 to store the user registration information. Then, the S-CSCF server 12 transmits an access request to the terminal device 16 via the P-CSCF server 13 where user registration information was confirmed by P-CSCF 13 (Oohira, [0046])).
4a. Claims 3, 5, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, and further in view of Merino Vazquez et al. (hereinafter "Merino") (US 9,036,554 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy not disclose wherein the message indicates the user device by indicating one or more of: an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Private Identity (IMPI) or an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Public Identity (MPU).
Merino discloses wherein the message indicates the user device by indicating one or more of: an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Private Identity (IMPI) or an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Public Identity (MPU) ) (an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Public Identity (IMPU)( Merino, column 8, lines 16-21 )).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Merino’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to improve the device identifier when a user is using multiple devices.
Regarding claim 5, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy not disclose wherein the message indicates the second computing device by indicating one or more of: a Proxy Call Session Call Function (P-CSCF) assigned to the user device or a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to the user device.
Merino discloses wherein the message indicates the second computing device by indicating one or more of: a Proxy Call Session Call Function (P-CSCF) assigned to the user device or (a network node having an assigned IP address with Call Session Control Function (CSCF) (Merino, column 2, lines 41-43 )).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Merino’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to provide a more reliable and efficient PCC architecture without increasing, or at least without excessively increasing, the implementation and architecture complexity and the associated equipment costs (Merino, column 2, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 7, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy not disclose wherein the determining comprises: updating, based on a determination that the user device was previously registered in a user database, information in the user database for one or more Call Session Control Function (CSCF) computing devices previously associated with the user device.
Merino discloses wherein the determining comprises: updating, based on a determination that the user device was previously registered in a user database (Merino discloses updating previously stored registration information (previously stored registration information is equated to previously registration in a data base) (Merino, column 12, lines 42-50 )), information in the user database for one or more Call Session Control Function (CSCF) computing devices previously associated with the user device (Merino discloses obtaining, by the S-CSCF, based on the IMPU, the subscription identifier of the UE from a user database (i.e., a database storing user-related information) where information previously stored in the database has being update ((Merino, column 2, lines 47-52; the updated information with contact binding-expiration time is disclosed in column 12, lies 42-50 (see above))).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Merino’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to provide a more reliable and efficient PCC architecture without increasing, or at least without excessively increasing, the implementation and architecture complexity and the associated equipment costs (Merino, column 2, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 12, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy not disclose wherein the determining comprises: updating, based on a determination that the user device was previously registered with the first computing device, information for one or more Call Session Control Function (CSCF) computing devices associated with the user device.
Merino discloses wherein the determining comprises: updating, based on a determination that the user device was previously registered with the first computing device, information for one or more Call Session Control Function (CSCF) computing devices associated with the user device ( Merino discloses updating information with contact binding expiration -time about a UE , when the IMSI of the UE was previously stored in the device (Merino, column 12, lines 42-50, Fig.1)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Merino’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to update accurately the information of a registering device by taking into account previous registration information of the registered device.
4b. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter "Zhang") (US 2010/0169646 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy do not disclose wherein the determining comprises increasing the quantity of user devices, and the method further comprising: based on a determination that the user device was previously registered in a user database, decreasing a quantity corresponding to a fourth computing device via which the one or more services are provided.
Zhang discloses wherein the determining comprises increasing the quantity of user devices, and the method further comprising: based on a determination that the user device was previously registered in a user database, decreasing a quantity corresponding to a fourth computing device via which the one or more services are provided(Zhang discloses A valid certificate of a new device is verified before the registered device can joined a first device and leave another device ( the number of devices in the first device will be increase and the number of devices in the other device will be decreased; where the other device that has the quantity of the registered devices that is decreased is equated to the fourth device)( verification of a valid certification in the register is equated to previously registered in the database because in both case the other device registration is saved in the first device prior the other device joined the first device) (Zhang, [0014]-[0015])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhang’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to keep track of what device that joins a registering device.
4c. Claims 11, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Dahlen (US 2011/0058480 A1), and further in view of Duffy.
Regarding claim 11, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy do not disclose further comprising: comparing, by the first computing device at predefined intervals, the quantity with a second threshold; and causing, based on a determination that the quantity exceeds the second threshold, deregistration of one or more user devices for one or more services provided via the second computing device.
Dahlen discloses further comprising: comparing, by the first computing device at predefined intervals, the quantity with a second threshold (at intervals, an eNB (first computer device) connected to a MME (the user device) a number of registered UEs (secondary devices) connected MME is responsible being compared to a threshold number (Dahlen, [0032])); and causing, based on a determination that the quantity exceeds the second threshold, deregistration of one or more user devices for one or more services provided via the second computing device (based on number of registered UEs reaching 90% Number, an UE connected to MME that was served by LTE a radio telecommunication network is elected to be served by WCDMA another radio telecommunication network ( by being elected to be served by WCDMA instead of LTE, a UE is now changed registration from LTE to WCDMA) (Dahlen, [0034])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dahlen’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to perform deregistration of a device efficiently by switching to a different radio telecommunication network when a threshold of registered UEs is reached.
Regarding claim 18, Oohira discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device configured to manage user device registrations for a plurality of computing devices ( S-CSCF server 13 is disclosed performing a registration process for uses by establishing, authenticating users connections, authenticating users, establishing sessions such steps are equated by the Examiners as managing the user’s registrations of several user devices (Oohira, [0040]-[0042)), information indicating user devices that have registered with a second computing device, of the plurality of computing devices (receiving using S-CSCF server 13 (first computer device) an information indicating that terminal devices 16 are registered on S-CSCF server 12 (second computer device) (Oohira, [0043]));
based on the information, comparing, by the first computing device, a quantity of user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device with a first threshold (using a predetermined state threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , the current state of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a threshold ( the preset threshold not less than a preset threshold is equated the number of user devices exceeds the threshold); this is subsequent to the information received from P-CSCF server 13 (first computer server) as it is disclosed in [0048] (Oohira, [0048]-[0049]); in [0043] the registration includes an association of the user ID that is associated the user (or user device; registration can include interpretation of registered user devices)); and
based on a determination that the quantity exceeds one or more of the first threshold or the second threshold, causing one or more user devices, of the user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device, to register with a third computing device of the plurality of computing devices, instead of the second computing device, for one or more services (using a predetermined load threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , the current load of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a preset load threshold (using a predetermined state threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , the current state of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a preset threshold ( the preset of threshold not less than a preset threshold is equated the number of user devices exceeds the threshold), another S-CSFC server is added and the information of user is added to the new S-CFCF server 12 ( new CSFC server 12 is equated to a third computer device) (Oohira, 0049]; [0051])) .
Oohira does not disclose comparing, by the first computing device, the quantity with a second threshold.
Dahlen discloses comparing, by the first computing device, the quantity with a second threshold(an eNB (first computer device) connected to a MME (the user device) a number of registered UEs (secondary devices) connected MME is responsible being compared to a threshold number (Dahlen, [0032])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dahlen’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to perform deregistration of a device efficiently by switching to a different radio telecommunication network when a threshold of registered UEs is reached.
Oohira in view of Dahlen do not disclose manage user device registrations was count user device registrations.
Duffy discloses count user device registrations ( an edge device being configured to collect a count registrations of user devices , Duffy, claim 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Duffy’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Dahlen’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to count the registration of devices efficiently by using an edge device for doing so.
Regarding claim 21, Oohira, Dahlen, and Duffy disclose the method of claim 18.
Oohira does not disclose wherein the causing comprises: sending, to the one or more user devices, a notification that the second computing device is at maximum capacity.
Dahlen discloses wherein the causing comprises: sending, to the one or more user devices, a notification that the second computing device is at maximum capacity (MMs (secondary devices) sending S1 overload messages of a eNB ( the eNB device is equated to a third computer device) ( the overload message of an eNB is equated to a third computer device at maximum capacity) (Dahlen, [0035])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dahlen’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to have a system made of two threshold one is a warning that prevent a system to stop functioning when the system reaches a threshold of 100%.
Regarding claim 22, Oohira, Dahlen, and Duffy disclose the method of claim 18.
Oohira does not disclose wherein the comparing the quantity with the second threshold further comprises comparing, based on a determination that the quantity exceeds the first threshold, the quantity with the second threshold.
Dahlen discloses wherein the comparing the quantity with the second threshold further comprises comparing, based on a determination that the quantity exceeds the first threshold, the quantity with the second threshold (Dahlen discloses a threshold of 100% has to a threshold of 90% also satisfy (Dahlen, [0034])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dahlen’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to have a system made of two threshold one is a warning that prevent a system to stop functioning when the system reaches a threshold of 100%.
Regarding claim 23, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy do not disclose wherein the determination that the quantity of the user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device exceeds the threshold comprises a determination, by the first computing device, that the quantity is greater than 1.
Dahlen discloses wherein the determination that the quantity of the user devices that are currently registered with the second computing device exceeds the threshold comprises a determination, by the first computing device, that the quantity is greater than 1( one or more nodes can be restricted when an overloaded message is send (therefore the threshold can be more than one) (Dahlen, [0025])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Dahlen’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to have a system made of two threshold one is a warning that prevent a system to stop functioning when the system reaches a threshold of 100%.
4d. Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, and further in view of Xu et al. (hereinafter "Xu") (US 2012/0198085 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy do not disclose wherein the causing the at least one user device to register with the third computing device, instead of the second computing device, for the | one or more services comprises one or more of: causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device, causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to prioritize registration with the third computing device, initiating a re-registration request for the user device, updating a registration status of the user device, or initiating a network-initiated deregistration for the user device.
Xu discloses wherein the causing the at least one user device to register with the third computing device, instead of the second computing device, for the | one or more services comprises one or more of: causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device, causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to prioritize registration with the third computing device, initiating a re-registration request for the user device, updating a registration status of the user device, or initiating a network-initiated deregistration for the user device (when the current weight is no less that a threshold a DNS update message via an weight and priority field in the SRV record where the entities are reported ( the entities reported are equated to currently registered devices) ( the priority field in the SRV is equated to the prioritize the registration; where SRV record is a registration load that is registered in the DNS SRV) ( Xu , [0025]-[0026]); in addition In [0056]-[0057] the case where the load is reported to the DNS immediately which corresponds to prioritize the registration in the DNS server ).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Xu’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to control the load balance effectively by deprioritize a device that has an exceeded load.
Regarding claim 13, Oohira discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a first computing device configured to manage user device registrations for a plurality of computing devices, ( S-CSCF server 13 is disclosed performing a registration process for uses by establishing, authenticating users connections, authenticating users, establishing sessions such steps are equated by the Examiners as managing the user’s registrations (Oohira, [0040]-[0042)), a message indicating that a user device has registered with one or more second computing devices, of the plurality of computing devices; (receiving using S-CSCF server 13 (first computer device) an information indicating that terminal device 16 is registered on S-CSCF server 12 (second computer device) (Oohira, [0043]));
based on the message, determining, by the first computing device, that a quantity of devices that are currently registered to receive one or more services via the one or more second computing devices exceeds a threshold (using a predetermined state threshold of the number of users registered in S-CSCF server 12 , the current state of a S-CSCF server 12 (second computer server ) is determined not less than a threshold ( the preset threshold not less than a preset threshold is equated the number of user devices exceeds the threshold); this is subsequent to the information received from P-CSCF server 13 (first computer server) as it is disclosed in [0048] (Ouhira, [0048]-[0049]); in [0043] the registration includes an association of the user ID that is associated the user (or user device; registration can include interpretation of registered user devices)).
Oohira does not disclose based on the determination that the quantity of devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices exceeding exceeds a threshold, causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize the one or more second computing devices.
Xu discloses based on the determination that the quantity of devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices exceeding exceeds a threshold ( by comparing a current weight to a previous weight a determination is made if the current weight is no less than a threshold ( no less than a threshold is equated to exceeded the threshold) ( Xu , [0025]-[0026]) in [0002]-[0003] entities are devices), causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize the one or more second computing devices (when the current weight is no less that a threshold a DNS update message via an weight and priority field in the SRV record where the entities are reported ( the entities reported are equated to currently registered devices) ( Xu , [0025]-[0026]) in addition In [0056]-[0057] the case where the load is not reported to the DNS immediately which corresponds to deprioritize the registration in the DNS server )).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Xu’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to control the load balance effectively by deprioritize a device that has an exceeded load.
Oohira in view of Xu do not disclose manage user device registrations was count user device registrations.
Duffy discloses count user device registrations ( an edge device being configured to collect a count registrations of user devices , Duffy, claim 8).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Duffy’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view Xu. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to count the registration of devices efficiently by using an edge device for doing so.
Regarding claim 14, Oohira, Duffy, and Xu disclose the method of claim 13, wherein the one or more second computing devices comprise one or more Call Session Control Function (CSCF) computing devices (S-CFCF server 12 ( new CSFC server 12 is equated to a second computer device) (Oohira, 0049])).
4e. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, in view of Xu and further in view of Boettger et al. (hereinafter “Boettger”) (US 2019/0098487 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Oohira, Xu, and Duffy disclose the method of claim 13.
Oohira in view of Xu and in view of Duffy do not disclose further comprising: causing, based on a determination that the quantity exceeds a second threshold, deregistration of one or more devices of the devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices.
Boettger discloses further comprising: causing, based on a determination that the quantity exceeds a second threshold, deregistration of one or more devices of the devices that are currently registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices ( a wireless circuitry having a multi-SIM wireless communication that limits the number of UICCs 204 that are subscribed to first wireless network ( second computer device), where removable UICC 204A/B can switch to a different wireless communication network ( second computer device) (Boettger,[0028] and [0032])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Boettger’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings, in view of Duffy’s teachings, and in view of Xu’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to deregister a device to a computer device effectively by unsubscribe the device to the computer device when a number of devices subscribed to the computer device reach a limit.
4f. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, in view of Xu, and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter "Zhang") (US 2010/0169646 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Oohira, Duffy, and Xu disclose the method of claim 14.
Oohira, in view of Duffy, in view of Xu do not disclose wherein the determining comprises increasing a first quantity of devices registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices, and the method further comprising: decreasing a second quantity corresponding to another CSCF computing device.
Zhang discloses wherein the determining comprises increasing a first quantity of devices registered to receive the one or more services via the one or more second computing devices, and the method further comprising: decreasing a second quantity corresponding to another CSCF computing device (Zhang discloses A valid certificate of a new device is verified before the registered device can joined a first device and leave another device ( the number of devices in the first device will be increase and the number of devices in the other device will be decreased)( verification of a valid certification in the register is equated to previously registered in the database because in both case the other device registration is saved in the first device prior the other device joined the first device) (Zhang, [0014]-[0015])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhang’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings, in view of Duffy’s teachings, and in view of Xu’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to keep track of what device that joins a registering device.
4g. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, in view of Xu, and further in view of Merino Vazquez et al. (hereinafter "Merino") (US 9,036,554 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Oohira, Duffy, and Xu disclose the method of claim 13.
Oohira , in view of Duffy, and in view of Xu do not disclose wherein the message indicates the one or more second computing devices by indicating a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to the user device.
Merino discloses wherein the message indicates the one or more second computing devices by indicating a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to the user device (a network node having an assigned IP address with Call Session Control Function (CSCF) (Merino, column 2, lines 41-43 )).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Merino’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings, in view of Duffy’s teachings, and in view of Xu’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to provide a more reliable and efficient PCC architecture without increasing, or at least without excessively increasing, the implementation and architecture complexity and the associated equipment costs (Merino, column 2, lines 20-25).
4h. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira in view of Dahlen, in view of Duffy, and further in view of Seo et al. (hereinafter “Seo”) (US 2015/0288648 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Oohira, Dahlen, and Duffy disclose the method of claim 18.
Oohira in view of Dahlen and in view of Duffy do not disclose wherein the causing comprises: causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device.
Seo discloses wherein the causing comprises: causing an update of one or more domain name server addressing priorities to deprioritize registration with the second computing device (if DNS address is not present, the priority is assigned being low ( low priority is equated to deprioritize) (Seo , [0044])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Seo’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings, in view of Dahlen ‘s teachings, and in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order for a user to have an efficient way to give priority to a device by assigning priority to a device based on its DNS address is present or not.
4e. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of in view of Dahlen, in view of Duffy, and further YAMAMOTO et al. (hereinafter "YAMAMOTO") (US 2018/0234419 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Oohira, Dahlen, Duffy disclose the method of claim 18.
Oohira in view of Dahlen and in view of Duffy do not disclose wherein the causing comprises: causing deregistration of the one or more user devices.
YAMAMOTO discloses wherein the causing comprises: causing deregistration of the one or more user devices (based on a number of registered devices reaching a maximum number in a mobile device, one of registered device of the mobile device is deregistered (YAMAMOTO, [0035]-[0036])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate YAMAMOTO’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings, in view of Dahlen ‘s teachings, and in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to deregister a device efficiently by using a device that unregisters a previously registered device when the number of registered device in a mobile device reached a maximum number.
4g. Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oohira, in view of Duffy, and further in view of L’HEUREUX et al. (hereinafter "L’HEUREUX") (US 2015/0081382 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Oohira and Duffy disclose the method of claim 1.
Oohira in view of Duffy do not disclose wherein the quantity of the user devices comprises a quantity of the user devices associated with a plurality of users.
HEUREUX discloses wherein the quantity of the user devices comprises a quantity of the user devices associated with a plurality of users (L’HEUREUX discloses wireless communication device and their users being related using a customer relation system (L’HEUREUX , [0034])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HEUREUX’s teachings with Oohira’s teachings in view of Duffy’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to make wireless communication devices and their users to communicate efficiently by using suitable rules of a communication system that identifies efficiently the users of communication devices.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455