Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed June 24, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims and added new claim 23. Claims 2-23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered and are found to be partially persuasive. Accordingly, the previous rejections are withdrawn, and a new grounds of rejection is presented below relying on different portions of the Kish reference, and where the new rejection is based on Kish in view of Jackson in further view of Reddy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2,4-12,14-17,19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish et al (US Publication 20160036943) in view of Jackson (US Publication 20090109495) in further view of Reddy et al (US Publication 20120082158).
In reference to claim 2, Kish teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a device, a first setup request comprising: (see at least ¶ 56 lines 17-19 & ¶ 63 lines 24-26, where Kish teaches receiving a service access request)
a first Internet Protocol (IP) version indicator associated with an originating user device; and identification information of a target user device; (see at least ¶ 57 lines 9-11, where Kish teaches an IP version of the request associated with origin client device, and identification information of the target device)
determining, based on querying a mapping table with the identification information of the target user device, a second IP version indicator identifying an IP version of the target user device; (see at least ¶ 57 lines 1-11, where Kish teaches determining based on a mapping table a second IP version of the target device)
based on comparing the first IP version indicator in the first message with the second IP version associated with the target device, routing the first setup request to an IP device compatible with the determined second IP version indicator identifying the IP version of the target user device; (see at least ¶ 63 lines 20-29, where Kish teaches based on the comparison, routing the request to a device compatible with the determined second IP version of the target device) and
sending a second message based on the determined IP version associated with the target user device (see at least ¶ 57 lines 11-13, where Kish teaches sending a second message based on the determined target IP version of the target device).
Kish fails to explicitly teach a call session control function (CSCF) device, the message is a call message, querying a session description mapping table, and routing the first call message to an IP Multimedia Core Network Subsystem (IMS) device. However, Jackson teaches processing call messages through an IMS network (see Jackson, at least Abstract) and discloses CSCF servers receiving the call message and routing the messages to other IMS/CSCF servers/devices (see Jackson, at least ¶s 26,27,51) Furthermore, Jackson discloses a session description protocol table that maps target/destination information (see Jackson, at least ¶s 42,43). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kish based on the teachings of Jackson for the purpose of establishing and efficiently routing multimedia sessions thus reducing delay and congestion (see Jackson, at least ¶s 4,5,15-17).
Kish fails to explicitly teach routing the first call request to an IP Multimedia Subsytem (IMS) device compatible with the determined second IP version of the target device. However, Reddy teaches supporting interworking of SIP messages in IMS networks (see Reddy, at least Abstract & Background) and discloses routing call messages to IMS core devices based on the IP version of the target device (see Reddy, at least ¶s 46,88,104). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kish based on the teachings of Reddy for the purpose of ensuring device compatibility for routing multimedia sessions.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Kish, see at least ¶ 57, which teaches the first request with an IP version and the second request with a different IP version.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Kish, see at least ¶ 56 lines 15-21, which teaches the second message is a translated/mapped message.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Jackson, see at least ¶ 27,38, which teaches forwarding messages based on session description information of the target device. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kish in view of Jackson based on the rationale presented in claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Jackson, see at least ¶s 40,43, which teaches the request including a target phone number. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kish in view of Jackson based on the rationale presented in claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Jackson, see at least ¶ s 43,48, which teaches the server mapping the telephone number to a domain name. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kish in view of Jackson based on the rationale presented in claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Kish, see at least ¶ 57, which teaches the first request with an IP version and the second request with a different IP version.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Kish, see at least ¶ 63 lines 26-31 and ¶ 69 lines 5-8, which teaches the first request with an IP version and the second request with a different IP version and messaging with the target IP version. Jackson, see at least ¶ 38, teaches requests based on session description protocol. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kish in view of Jackson based on the rationale presented in claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 11, Kish teaches updating the mapping database, see at least ¶ 63 lines 21-33. And Jackson teaches updating the SDP table based on the registration message, see Jackson at least ¶ 52. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kish in view of Jackson based on the rationale presented in claim 2 above.
In reference to claim 22, Kish teaches querying the mapping table and determining IP version type of the target/server device, see at least ¶ 25 lines 7-10, ¶ 52 and ¶ 57 lines 1-6.
In reference to claim 23, this is taught by Jackson, see at least ¶ 51, which teaches SIP invite messages for call setup requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Kish in view of Jackson based on the rationale presented in claim 2 above.
Claims 12,14-17,19-21 are slight variations of claims 2,4-11,22,23 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above for claims 2,4-11,22,23.
Claims 3,13,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kish et al (US Publication 20160036943) in view of Jackson (US Publication 20090109495) in in further view of Reddy et al (US Publication 20120082158) further view of Corona et al (US Publication 20180124124) .
In reference to claim 3, Kish teaches determining IP version 4 or 6 as shown in claim 2 above. Kish fails to explicitly teach the table comprises E.164 Number to URL Mapping (ENUM), and wherein session description information associated with the target user device comprises Name Authority Pointer (NAPTR) specific to either IPv4 or IPv6. However, Corona teaches network routing based on querying a registry (see Corona, at least Abstract) and discloses a session description query of the registry (see Corona, at least ¶s 19-20). Corona further discloses a session description query of the registry, and determining a response based on ENUM and NAPTR related to the destination terminal (see Corona, at least ¶s 26-28). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kish based on the teachings of Corona for the purpose of establishing and efficiently handling telecommunication sessions between networks.
Claims 13,18 are slight variations of claim 3 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above for claim 3.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users.
To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format.
For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights