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 January 22, 2026.
Status of Claims
No claims were amended. Claims 2-22 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of remarks, Applicant argues that the Kish reference does not teach the claimed message comprising an IP version and the claimed “based on comparing…”.
In reply, Applicant is reminded that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The references are applied to these broad limitations in a reasonable manner. Furthermore, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims unless the specification provides explicit and non-broad definitions of said limitations. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only require the message to contain an IP version belonging to or associated with the originating device. In this case, the client device #316 of Kish is the originating device, and it sends a request message which indicates which version the client device is compatible with. As mentioned in ¶ 52 of Kish, there are instances where the client is compatible only with IPv4 or only with IPv6, and there are also instances where the client is compatible with both IPv4 and IPv6 but prefers to communicate using a particular version that it chooses. Accordingly the client is requesting to communicate with a target device based on the requested IP version. The claims fail to give proper context and detail which would prevent broad interpretations and/or obviate the Kish reference.
On pages 10-11 of remarks, Applicant argues that Jackson also doesn’t teach the claim features, and does not suggest adding an IP version.
In reply, Firstly, Kish was relied up to teach the main claim elements that establish the framework of the invention, specifically a request message that includes an IP version of an originating device. Also, Kish was relied upon to teach querying a table containing target device information and IP version of the target device. Secondly, Jackson was only relied upon to teach the missing claim elements such as the message being a call message and the table being a session description table. In this case, Jackson teaches a call message as shown in the rejection below. Jackson also teaches querying a session description protocol (SDP) Table, and additionally teaches that the payload of the request/SIP message may contain a protocol version. The SDP Table is built using whatever attribute information is relevant for the task at hand. Accordingly, the task at hand by Kish is to query a table containing destination and protocol information. It would therefore be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an SDP Table for the query.
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 2,4-12,14-17,19-22 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 reference to claim 2, Kish teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a device, a first message comprising: a first Internet Protocol (IP) version indicator associated with an originating user device; and identification information of a target user device; (see at least ¶ 25 lines 4-10, ¶ 53 & ¶ 57 lines 1-3, where Kish teaches receiving a request message from an originating user/client device, the request is based on the type of IP protocol which the client is compatible, and identifies the target/server device #318 that the user device wants to communicate with)
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 ¶ 25 lines 7-10, ¶ 52 and ¶ 57 lines 1-6, where Kish teaches querying a DNS table and determining IP version type of the target/server 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 call message to an IP device compatible with the determined second IP version indicator identifying the IP version of the target user device; (see at least ¶ 25 lines 7-20 & ¶s 47,57, where Kish teaches evaluating/comparing the IP protocol type of the first client device with the IP protocol type of the second/recipient device, and routing the message to a device compatible with the IP version of the second/recipient device) and
sending a second message based on the determined IP version associated with the target user device (see at least ¶ 25 lines 20-27 and ¶ 57 lines 11-14, where Kish teaches sending subsequent messages based on the determined target IP version).
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) 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).
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 DNS table and determining IP version type of the target/server device, see at least ¶ 25 lines 7-10, ¶ 52 and ¶ 57 lines 1-6.
Claims 12,14-17,19-21 are slight variations of claims 2,4-11,22 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale given above for claims 2,4-11,22.
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 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
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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.
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
March 9, 2026