DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1-21 are pending. No claims are amended or cancelled. Claim 21 is new. This Office action is in response to Applicant’s request for reconsideration after non-final rejection filed on 3/4/2026.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Shi (US 2011/0275372) is generally related to restoring a call when a serving call session control function (S-CSCF) is faulty or unavailable.
Response to Arguments
Examiner addresses the arguments of Applicant’s representative below.
Rejection of claims 1, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s representative raises four main arguments with respect to the combination of Jahangir, Thomas or Coughlin, and Wang. Examiner will now address each of these arguments in turn.
First Argument
Applicant’s representative argues that Thomas does not teach or suggest “that a P-CSCF – or any IMS proxy – would send ‘a second message comprising restoration information associated with the request,’ nor does any portion of Thomas teach or suggest any IMS S-CSCF, HSS, SIP registration, or call-setup signaling.” However, this argument is unpersuasive because it attacks Thomas for not disclosing Jahangir’s IMS-specific architecture rather than the teaching for which Thomas is actually relied upon. Thomas is not cited for P-CSCF, S-CSCF, HSS, SIP registration, or IMS call-setup signaling; Jahangir supplies that framework. Thomas is cited for teaching that an intermediary/proxy stores session-state information, detects failure of a first server, selects a replacement server, and sends the replacement server session-state information sufficient to continue the session from the prior state. Thomas expressly discloses a content router that proxies session-control messages, stores session identification and state data, detects failure, selects a new streaming server, and sends the newly assigned server session-state information together with setup/play messaging so that the replacement server resumes the session. Thus, Thomas suggests modifying the system of Jahangir so that P-CSCF includes the restoration information in the second SIP request that it sends to the second S-CSCF (instead of the requiring the second S-CSCF to obtain the restoration information from the HSS), because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS to obtain the restoration information, thereby potentially reducing the amount of time needed to restore the session.
Second Argument
Applicant’s representative argues that “Coughlin’s restoration information is the stored HTTP itself, not registration information, not call-setup parameters, and not any information resembling IMS restoration information. The proxy’s operation is limited to replaying previous HTTP requests; it does not teach or suggest an IMS device sending ‘restoration information associated with the request,’ and no portion of Coughlin teaches or suggests S-CSCF, HSS, SIP INVITE flows, registration data, or security validation used in IMS.” However, this argument is unpersuasive because it attacks Coughlin for failing to disclose IMS-specific architecture rather than the teaching for which Coughlin is actually relied upon. Coughlin is not cited for S-CSCF, HSS, SIP INVITE signaling, registration data, or IMS security validation. Instead, Coughlin is cited for teaching that an intermediary proxy stores request-associated information, detects failure of a primary server, and transmits the stored request information to a secondary server to restore the session. Coughlin expressly discloses that the session integrity proxy stores a request sent from the client to the primary server, detects an error at the primary server, and transmits the request to the secondary server. Thus, like Thomas, Coughlin also suggests modifying the system of Jahangir so that P-CSCF includes the restoration information in the second SIP request that it sends to the second S-CSCF (instead of the requiring the second S-CSCF to obtain the restoration information from the HSS), because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS to obtain the restoration information, thereby potentially reducing the amount of time needed to restore the session.
Third Argument
Applicant’s representative argues that Wang does not teach or suggest “any device sending IMS restoration information, nor that the same device performs both the failure determination and the transmission of a second message ‘comprising restoration information associated with the request.’ ” However, this argument is unpersuasive because it attacks Wang for failing to disclose IMS-specific restoration information. Wang is not relied upon for Jahangir’s IMS architecture, but rather for teaching that a restoration message is validated using security information before restoration proceeds. Wang expressly discloses a call restoration message containing a recovery header and call information from client-side and server-side call state, and further discloses validating that message using a call session identifier, stored STUN credentials, and a recovery-request time window before sending a message that causes restoration. Thus, Wang suggests modifying the system of Jahangir and Thomas/Coughlin so that the second S-CSCF validates the restoration information using security information prior to restoring the call using the restoration information, because doing so enhances the security of the system by ensuring that only valid restoration information is used to restore a call.
Applicant is correct, however, that Wang does not itself teach that the same device both determines another device is unresponsive and, based on that determination, sends the restoration message. Nevertheless, Examiner does not rely on Wang for the teaching of the same device both determining another device is unresponsive and, based on that determination, sending a restoration message – such a feature is taught by Jahangir. Instead, Examiner merely relies on wang for the validation aspect, as indicated in the preceding paragraph.
Fourth Argument
Applicant’s representative argues that:
“The Office's proposed combination also conflicts with the IMS architecture that Jahangir expressly describes. The Office alleges that it ‘would have been obvious to modify the system of Jahangir so that P-CSCF includes the restoration information in the second SIP request because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS.’ See Office Action at 6. This reasoning is inconsistent with Jahangir's description that the S-CSCF must obtain restoration data from the HSS: ‘The second S-CSCF then obtains the restoration information from the HSS.’ Jahangir's descriptions at paragraphs 43 and 45 show that the S-CSCF's receipt of the SAA and UDA is essential to acquiring updated registration and routing data. The proposed modification removes the very step that Jahangir describes as providing authoritative restoration information and replaces it with a P-CSCF-originated message containing data that Jahangir does not teach the P-CSCF to possess or send.”
However, this argument is unpersuasive because it wrongly assumes the proposed modification must replace Jahangir’s HSS-based restoration path. It does not. Claim 1 only requires that the first device send a second message comprising restoration information associated with the request. Nothing in that claim language requires the second device to obtain restoration information only from that second message, or forbids the second device from also consulting the HSS for additional, updated, or confirmatory data. On that reading, there is no real architectural conflict: the modified system can have the P-CSCF include restoration information in the second SIP request and still permit the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS for any remaining authoritative profile or routing data. This argument therefore attacks a strawman version of the combination—one that deletes the HSS step entirely—rather than the narrower modification actually needed to satisfy the claim.
The argument also misses why Thomas and Coughlin were cited. They are not offered to show that Jahangir already teaches proxy-held restoration data; they are offered to show that it was known for an intermediary/proxy to retain request/session state, detect failure, and forward that state to a replacement server so the session can resume. Thomas expressly teaches that the content router computes and stores session-state information during the session, detects failure of the original streaming server, selects another streaming server, and transmits information to set up the new server so it can continue the session from the prior state. Thomas further discloses forwarding concrete session-state information such as session identifiers, RTP timestamp/sequence information, and a play request so the new server resumes the prior session state. Coughlin likewise teaches that the session integrity proxy stores a client request, detects an error at the primary server, and transmits the stored request to the secondary server to restore the session, with the proxy replaying saved requests until the client is returned to the pre-failure state.
So, the fact that Jahangir’s original embodiment gets restoration information from the HSS does not defeat obviousness. It simply means Jahangir supplies the IMS failover framework, while Thomas/Coughlin supply the additional teaching that a proxy-side intermediary can also hold and forward request-associated restoration/state information to the replacement server after failure. That is a supplementation of Jahangir’s restoration process, not an impermissible rewrite of it. Thomas, in particular, shows a proxy-triggered failover that is transparent to the client and driven by the intermediary’s stored state, which is exactly the kind of teaching Examiner invoked to justify moving at least some restoration information into the failover message.
The “authoritative restoration information” point also imports a limitation that is not in claim 1. Claim 1 does not require that the second message contain the entire universe of registration, routing, or profile information, nor that the message’s contents be the sole authoritative source used by the third device. It requires only that the second message comprise restoration information associated with the request. Thomas and Coughlin both teach that request/session-associated state can be preserved at an intermediary and then transmitted to a replacement server after failure. Whether Jahangir’s HSS remains the authoritative back-end source for additional data does not negate the obviousness of also including restoration information in the second message.
Rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s representative argues that:
“Nayak does not disclose any P-CSCF-originated restoration information. Nayak's description in paragraph 85 states that the HSS sends an SAA message to an S-CSCF in a failover scenario and that the SAA ‘includes a stored timestamp and expiry value for the registration of the UE.’ This description does not teach or suggest ‘at least a portion of the restoration information’ in claim 1 because the message carrying the timestamp and expiry value is sent from the HSS to the S-CSCF, not from a P-CSCF to any S-CSCF, and not as part of the claimed ‘sending, by the first computing device a second message comprising restoration information associated with the request.’
…
The Office acknowledges this architectural incompatibility. At page 4, the Office states: ‘Examiner agrees that Nayak's restoration information is sent to the second S-CSCF from an HSS instead of being sent from a P-CSCF to the second S-CSCF in response to the P-CSCF determining that a first S-CSCF is unresponsive.’ This examiner admission confirms that Nayak not only fails to supply the missing ‘sending, by the first computing device a second message comprising restoration information’ feature of claim 1, but also reinforces that Nayak teaches away from relocating HSS-generated restoration information to the P-CSCF. The Office then alleges that Nayak is used ‘for the suggestion of modifying the user registration information included in the restoration information,’ but identifies no portion in Nayak that would relocate restoration information from the HSS to the P-CSCF or alter the direction of messaging in the IMS registration architecture-an alteration that Nayak’s own descriptions discourage and thus teach away from.”
However, this argument is unpersuasive. The key problem is that it attacks Nayak for failing to teach the entire claim 1 messaging architecture, even though the non-final rejection of claim 4 does not rely on Nayak for that. In the rejection, Examiner explicitly says Jahangir/Thomas/Coughlin/Wang are relied on for claim 1, and Nayak is added only “in further view” to supply the extra timing-information aspect of claim 4. On that theory, Nayak does not need to disclose a P-CSCF-originated restoration message. It only needs to teach that the relevant user registration data can include timing information such as when registration occurred and how long it remains valid. That is exactly how paragraph 40 of the non-final rejection uses Nayak.
So, the repeated insistence that Nayak’s timestamp/expiry data is sent from HSS to S-CSCF, not P-CSCF to S-CSCF, misses Examiner’s actual combination. The rejection is not saying Nayak alone teaches the “sending, by the first computing device ... a second message comprising restoration information” limitation. The rejection says the base combination teaches that architecture, and Nayak is added only for the narrower proposition that the registration data can include a timestamp and expiry time.
The same flaw appears in the “architectural incompatibility” point. Even accepting that Nayak’s disclosed embodiment places the timestamp/expiry data in an HSS-generated SAA, that does not establish incompatibility with Examiner’s theory. A reference does not have to disclose the claimed invention in the same message path or same originating node to be relevant in a combination rejection. Examiner’s rationale in paragraph 41 is that adding timing information to the registration data in the restoration information would let the second S-CSCF determine expiration and trigger re-registration when appropriate. That is a straightforward content-modification rationale, not necessarily a relocation of Nayak’s exact HSS→S-CSCF signaling flow wholesale into the P-CSCF message.
The “teach away” argument is also unpersuasive. Saying Nayak discloses timestamps/expiry times in HSS↔S-CSCF exchanges is not the same as saying Nayak criticizes, discredits, or discourages using that timing information elsewhere. On the text provided, Nayak appears to disclose where the information resides in its embodiment, but that is not the kind of affirmative discouragement usually needed for a strong “teaches away” argument. The “teaches away” argument points to architectural difference, but architectural difference alone is usually not enough.
Claim Rejections: 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Jahangir (US 2018/0007612) in view of either Thomas (US 2010/0191858) or Coughlin (US 2003/0204769), and in further view of Wang (US 2016/0173464).1
Regarding claim 1, Jahangir teaches a method comprising: sending, by a first computing device, based on a request from a first computing device to establish a call, a first message to a second computing device (A proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) receives a session initiation protocol (SIP) request from a user equipment (UE) and responsively sends a first SIP request to a first serving call session control function (S-CSCF). See par. 40; fig. 2. The first SIP request is associated with registration data stored at a home subscriber server (HSS), such as an IP multimedia public identity (IMPU), user data, S-CSCF restoration data, and associated identities information. See par. 45; fig. 2); determining, by the first computing device, that the second computing device is not responding to the first message (The P-CSCF polls the first S-CSCF and determines that the first S-CSCF is unresponsive if the first S-CSCF does not respond to the first SIP request within a predetermined time period. See par. 41; fig. 2); and sending, by the first computing device, to a third computing device and based on the first computing device determining that the second computing device is not responding to the first message, a second message that causes the third computing device to establish the call using restoration information associated with the request (In response to the determination that the first S-CSCF is unresponsive, the P-CSCF sends a second SIP request to a second S-CSCF to enable establishment of the call notwithstanding the unresponsiveness of the first S-CSCF. See par. 42; fig. 2. The second S-CSCF then obtains the restoration information from the HSS for use in establishing the call. See par. 43, 45; fig. 2).
However, Jahangir does not teach that the second message comprises the restoration information. Nonetheless, Thomas teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a content router intermediates a session between a client device and a first server, and whereby the content router sends restoration information to a second server for restoring the session at the second server in response to the content router determining that the first server has failed. See par. 23-25, 56-61; fig. 1. Similarly, Coughlin teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a session integrity proxy intermediates a session between a web client and a primary web server, and whereby the session integrity proxy sends restoration information to a secondary web server in response to the session integrity proxy determining that the primary web server has failed. See par. 25; fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir so that P-CSCF includes the restoration information in the second SIP request that it sends to the second S-CSCF (instead of the requiring the second S-CSCF to obtain the restoration information from the HSS), because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS to obtain the restoration information, thereby potentially reducing the amount of time needed to restore the session.
Additionally, Jahangir and Thomas/Coughlin do not teach that the third computing device validates the restoration information using security information to establish the call. However, Wang teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a signaling gateway receives a call restoration message from a client that is attempting to restore a session, and whereby the signaling gateway validates the call restoration message using security information (such as a call session identifier, STUN credentials stored in server side call state information, and a recovery request time window) prior to restoring the session using the restoration message. See par. 35, 38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir and Thomas/Coughlin so that the second S-CSCF validates the restoration information using security information prior to restoring the call using the restoration information, because doing so enhances the security of the system by ensuring that only valid restoration information is used to restore a call.
Regarding claim 2, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second message comprises a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message (Jahangir teaches that the second SIP request that the P-CSCF sends to the second S-CSCF is a SIP message. See par. 74).
Regarding claim 6, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the second computing device is not responding to the first message indicates that the second computing device is unreachable (Jahangir teaches that the P-CSCF may determine that the first S-CSCF is either unreachable or reachable but too busy to handle additional traffic. See par. 41).
Regarding claim 7, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the third computing device is determined based on at least one selection mechanism, wherein the at least one selection mechanism comprises at least one of a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) of the third computing device that is included in a header of the first message or a list (Jahangir teaches that the second S-CSCF may be selected from a pool of available S-CSCF nodes. See par. 42).
Regarding claim 8, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, from the third computing device, a third message indicating that the call is established (According to the SIP protocol, a UE receives a 200 OK response from an S-CSCF in response to a successful INVITE request and a 4xx failure response from the S-CSCF in response to an unsuccessful INVITE request. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SIP_response_codes#4xx—Client_Failure_Responses. However, since Jahangir’s second S-CSCF takes over for the first S-CSCF, it is understood that the second S-CSCF sends the 200 OK response instead of the first S-CSCF. Moreover, Wang teaches sending a recovery success message (i.e., 200 OK response code) in response to successfully validating the restoration information. See par. 35).
Regarding claim 9, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 8, wherein the receiving the third message is based on the restoration information being associated with user registration data that is valid (Wang teaches determining that the restoration message is associated with valid registration data (See par. 34), which suggests further modifying the system of Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang so that the second S-CSCF determines that the restoration information is associated with valid registration data, because doing so allows the system to avoid restoring a call that is associated with invalid registration data).
Regarding claim 10, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 9, wherein the restoration information comprises at least one of an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Public Identity (IMPU), a contact IP address, or registration information associated with the first computing device (Jahangir teaches that the additional restoration information includes registration data such as an IP multimedia public identity (IMPU), user data, S-CSCF restoration data, and associated identities information. See par. 45; fig. 2. Wang teaches that the restoration information includes a called party identifier, as well as client and server call state information (i.e., registration data) associated with one or more devices).
Regarding claim 11, Jahangir teaches a method comprising: receiving, from a first computing device, a first message comprising a request to establish a call (A second S-CSCF receives a second SIP request from a P-CSCF. See par. 73-74), receiving restoration information associated with the request, wherein the restoration information is associated with user registration data (A home subscriber server (HSS) stores restoration information and associated registration data, such as an IP multimedia public identity (IMPU), user data, S-CSCF restoration data, and associated identities information. See par. 45; fig. 2), and wherein the first message is based on a determination by the first computing device that a second computing device is not responding to the request (The second S-CSCF receives a second SIP request from a P-CSCF in response to the P-CSCF determining that a first S-CSCF is not responding to a first SIP request sent to the first S-CSCF by the P-CSCF. See par. 72-73); and sending, to the first computing device, a second message indicating establishment of the call (According to the SIP protocol, the second S-CSCF sends the P-CSCF a 200 OK response if the second SIP request is successful and a 4xx failure response if the second SIP request is not successful. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SIP_response_codes#4xx—Client_Failure_Responses).
However, Jahangir does not teach that the first message comprises the restoration information. Nonetheless, Thomas teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a content router intermediates a session between a client device and a first server, and whereby the content router sends restoration information to a second server for restoring the session at the second server in response to the content router determining that the first server has failed. See par. 23-25, 56-61; fig. 1. Similarly, Coughlin teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a session integrity proxy intermediates a session between a web client and a primary web server, and whereby the session integrity proxy sends restoration information to a secondary web server in response to the session integrity proxy determining that the primary web server has failed. See par. 25; fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir so that P-CSCF includes the restoration information in the second SIP request that it sends to the second S-CSCF (instead of the requiring the second S-CSCF to obtain the restoration information from the HSS), because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS to obtain the restoration information, thereby potentially reducing the amount of time needed to restore the session.
In addition, Jahangir and Thomas/Coughlin do not teach that the step of sending the second message to the first computing device is performed in response to determining that the restoration information is associated with valid user registration data based on security information associated with the restoration information. Nonetheless, Wang teaches a system for restoring a call, whereby a device receives a call restoration message (i.e., restoration information) that is associated with security information (i.e., a call session identifier, security credentials, and an allotted recovery request time window), whereby the device validates the call restoration message to determine whether the call restoration message is associated with valid user registration data (i.e., active session data that has not expired) using the security information, and whereby the device sends a recovery success message (i.e., 200 OK response code) in response to the call restoration message being valid. See par. 35, 38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir and Thomas/Coughlin so that the second S-CSCF sends a success message (i.e., 200 OK response code) in response to receiving the restoration information from the P-CSCF in the second SIP message and determining that the restoration information is associated with valid registration data using security information associated with the restoration information, because doing so allows the second S-CSCF to ensure that the restoration information is associated with valid registration data before restoring the call.
Regarding claim 12, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 11, wherein the restoration information comprises at least one of an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Public Identity (IMPU), a contact IP address, or registration information associated with a third computing device (Jahangir teaches that the additional restoration information includes registration data such as an IP multimedia public identity (IMPU), user data, S-CSCF restoration data, and associated identities information. See par. 45; fig. 2. Wang teaches that the restoration information includes a called party identifier, as well as client and server call state information (i.e., registration data) associated with one or more devices).
Regarding claim 13, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 11, wherein the first message comprises a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message (Jahangir teaches that the second request that the P-CSCF sends to the second S-CSCF is a SIP message. See par. 74).
Regarding claim 16, Jahangir teaches a method comprising: receiving, from a first computing device, a first message comprising a request to establish a call (A second S-CSCF receives a second SIP request from a P-CSCF. See par. 42; fig. 2), receiving restoration data information associated with the request, wherein the restoration information is associated with user registration data (A home subscriber server (HSS) stores restoration information and associated registration data, such as an IP multimedia public identity (IMPU), user data, S-CSCF restoration data, and associated identities information. See par. 45; fig. 2), and wherein the first message is based on a determination by the first computing device that a second computing device is not responding to the request (A second S-CSCF receives a second SIP request from a P-CSCF in response to the P-CSCF determining that a first S-CSCF is not responding to a first SIP request sent to the first S-CSCF by the P-CSCF. See par. 40-42; fig. 2); and sending, to the first computing device, a second message indicating that the call is not being established (According to the SIP protocol, the second S-CSCF sends the P-CSCF a 200 OK response if the second SIP request is successful and a 4xx failure response if the second SIP request is not successful. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_SIP_response_codes#4xx—Client_Failure_Responses).
However, Jahangir does not teach that the first message comprises the restoration information. Nonetheless, Thomas teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a content router intermediates a session between a client device and a first server, and whereby the content router sends restoration information to a second server for restoring the session at the second server in response to the content router determining that the first server has failed. See par. 23-25, 56-61; fig. 1. Similarly, Coughlin teaches a method of restoring a session, whereby a session integrity proxy intermediates a session between a web client and a primary web server, and whereby the session integrity proxy sends restoration information to a secondary web server in response to the session integrity proxy determining that the primary web server has failed. See par. 25; fig. 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir so that P-CSCF includes the restoration information in the second SIP request that it sends to the second S-CSCF (instead of the requiring the second S-CSCF to obtain the restoration information from the HSS), because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to contact the HSS to obtain the restoration information, thereby potentially reducing the amount of time needed to restore the session.
In addition, Jahangir and Thomas/Coughlin do not teach that the step of sending the second message to the first computing device is performed in response to determining that the restoration information is not associated with valid user registration data based on security information associated with the restoration information. Nonetheless, Wang teaches a system for restoring a call, whereby a device receives a call restoration message (i.e., restoration information) that is associated with security information (i.e., a call session identifier, security credentials, and an allotted recovery request time window), whereby the device validates the call restoration message to determine whether the call restoration message is associated with valid user registration data (i.e., active session data that has not expired) using the security information, and whereby the device sends a failure message (instead of a recovery success message with a 200 OK response code) in response to the call restoration message not being valid. See par. 35, 38.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir so that the second S-CSCF sends a failure message in response to receiving the restoration information from the P-CSCF and determining that the restoration information is associated with valid registration data using security information associated with the restoration information, because doing so allows the second S-CSCF to ensure that the restoration information is associated with valid registration data before restoring the call.
Regarding claim 17, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 16, wherein the restoration information comprises at least one of an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Public Identity (IMPU), a contact IP address, or registration information associated with a third computing device (Jahangir teaches that the additional restoration information includes registration data such as an IP multimedia public identity (IMPU), user data, S-CSCF restoration data, and associated identities information. See par. 45; fig. 2. Wang teaches that the restoration information includes a called party identifier, as well as client and server call state information (i.e., registration data) associated with one or more devices).
Regarding claim 18, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 16, wherein the first message comprises a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message (Jahangir teaches that the second SIP request that the P-CSCF sends to the second S-CSCF is a SIP message. See par. 74).
Claims 3, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang, as applied to claims 2, 13, and 18 above, in further view Bath (US 2015/0121123) and
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 19, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang do not teach the method of claim 2, wherein the SIP message comprises a header that comprises the restoration information. However, Bath teaches a second SIP INVITE that includes registration data (i.e., restoration information) in a header of the second SIP INVITE. See par. 38, 57.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang so that the second SIP message includes the restoration information in the header of the second SIP message because doing so eliminates the need for the second S-CSCF to obtain the restoration from the HSS.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because it is unpatentable over Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Nayak (US 2021/0410095).
Regarding claim 4, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the restoration information includes user registration data associated with the first computing device (Jahangir teaches that the SAA message (i.e., restoration information) sent from the HSS to the second S-CSCF includes user registration data such as “IMPU, User-Data, S-CSCF-Restoration-Info, Associated-Identities” of the UE, etc. See par. 45), but do not teach wherein the user registration data indicates timing information indicating at least one of when a user registered and an amount of time that the user registration data is valid. However, Nayak teaches a system whereby a S-CSCF obtains registration data that includes a time stamp and an expiry time for use by the S-CSCF in determining whether registration data of a UE has expired. See par. 85-86. For instance, the time stamp indicates a time at which the UE registered (i.e., 10 AM), the expiry time indicates a duration of the registration (i.e., 1 hour), and the time stamp and expiry time are combinable to derive an expiry value indicating the time at which the registration expires (i.e., 11 AM). See par. 59, 75; fig. 1, item 118.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang so that the user registration data included in the restoration information indicates timing information indicating at least one of a time of registration and a duration of the registration, because doing so allows the S-CSCF to cause the UE to reregister when the second S-CSCF determines that the registration data has expired.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 because they are unpatentable over Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang, as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, in further view of Gray (US 5,805,705).
Regarding claim 5, 15, and 20, Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang teach the method of claim 1, wherein the security information is stored at the third computing device (Wang teaches that the security information is stored on the signaling gateway that receives the call restoration message, which suggests further modifying the system of Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang so that the third device (which receives the restoration information) also stores the security information, because doing so is beneficial for the reasons provided above with respect to claim 1), but Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang do not teach wherein at least a portion of the restoration information is encrypted, and the security information comprises a security key that is accessible to the third computing device, wherein the security key is based on at least one of: symmetric encryption and is shared by the one or more third computing devices, asymmetric encryption based on a public and private key combination, or a Java web token (JWT). However, Gray teaches a system for secure communication between nodes of a communication network, whereby a source node encrypts a message using an encryption key and sends the encrypted message to a destination node, and whereby the destination node decrypts the encrypted message using a decryption key (i.e., security information) that is accessible to the destination node. See col. 2, ln. 50-67.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Jahangir, Thomas/Coughlin, and Wang so that the restoration information is encrypted, and so that the second S-CSCF decrypts the restoration information using a decryption key that is accessible to the second S-CSCF, because doing so allows the restoration information to be securely transmitted from the P-CSCF to the second S-CSCF.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Georgandellis whose telephone number is 571-270-3991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30-5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger, can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/ANDREW C GEORGANDELLIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
1 Examiner hereinafter uses the phrase “Thomas/Coughlin” to refer to either Thomas or Coughlin.
Prosecution Insights