Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant remarks filed 10/14/2025 with respect to double patenting rejection have been fully considered in view of applicant response (i.e. since other rejection are currently outstanding in this matter…..). However, the double patenting rejection is maintained since no proper terminal disclaimer is being submitted yet.
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to 103 rejection filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts (page 9 of remarks):
a) Antoun and Liu do not teach the claimed features "comparing ... the count with a plurality of thresholds, wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests ... and a second threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold" as recited in claim 1.
b) However, Examiner very kindly directs applicant to Nehme Antoun reference where teaches, the number of other registration requests exceeds a threshold number of registration requests. Data indicating the threshold number of registration requests and the time period occurring before receipt of the registration request can be stored with data storage device 204. In accordance with any or one or more example embodiments, determining whether the classification of the RF signals from the macro base station 112 is associated with dropping or accepting the registration request is conditioned on core network 118 or a device therein operating in a state that exceeds a threshold congestion state. Data indicating the threshold congestion state for comparison to operating conditions of core network 118 or the device therein can be stored with data storage device 204. The threshold congestion state can be for operating conditions of core network device 118 or the device therein other than receiving more than a threshold number of registration requests from femto base stations. Also, block 610 includes counting a number of other registration requests received during a time period. The time period for counting registration requests can be thirty seconds, sixty seconds, or some other amount of time (Col.11, lines 65-67 and Col.12, lines 1-15 and 56-59). In addition, Liu reference teaches, the action profiles can specify multiple trigger thresholds for the same components and for the same entity. The trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels). For example, an action profile for an ISP might include a first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (first criteria) and a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (second criteria). Moreover, the action profiles can also specify different actions for each of the trigger thresholds. For instance the example first trigger threshold might be deemed to have a relatively low priority. It can therefore be associated with an action involving the transmission of an email to a general administrator email support address. The second trigger threshold might be deemed to have a higher priority, and therefore, be associated with an action involving the transmission of a text (SMS) message to a specific administrator (Col.7, lines 18-35). Also, a filtering and grouping algorithm 208 can be applied to generate candidate problem sources and their linked endpoint subgroups 212. In addition to information from the list of endpoints 202, list of the potential problem sources 206, and connection matrix 204, data specifying potential problems with endpoints 210 can be used in the filtering and group algorithm. For example, the problematic endpoint data 210 might identify endpoints that did not provide registration messages within a set time window (e.g., 10 minutes). The filtering and grouping algorithm can identify candidate subgroups for these identified endpoints. The subgroups can be generated by first identifying problem sources associated with the endpoints identified in endpoint data 210. Working backward from the problem sources, the associated endpoints can then be identified. The resulting data set 212 is a set of candidate sources and their respective subgroup(s). A probabilistic determination 214 can then be made for each of the candidate problem sources specified in the data set 212. In certain embodiments, the result can be a probability that each of the potential problem sources is causing one or more of the problems identified in the problematic endpoint data 210. In some cases there may be multiple different problems associated with a single potential problem source. For example, some endpoints associated with a potential problem source might report call quality issues while other endpoints associated with the same potential problem source might be identified as having lost connectivity with an SIP server. In some instances, the algorithm could be configured to calculate a separate likelihood for each set of endpoints and associated problem. Depending upon the configuration for the trigger thresholds, each of these separate likelihoods might have a different trigger threshold level, or they could be aggregated and the result compared to a trigger threshold level (Col.9, lines 27-61). Further, the monitor server can be configured to make probabilistic determinations for problem sources corresponding to the parsed endpoint devices, per block 308. For example, the monitor server can be configured to determine the likelihood that various potential problem sources have an issue with their functionality. The monitor server can then determine whether or not a corresponding trigger threshold is exceeded, per block 312. This can include, for example, comparing the determined probability to a threshold probability level. As discussed herein, there can be multiple trigger thresholds for each problem source and each trigger threshold can correspond to a different indicated problem (e.g., call quality and connectivity loss). If the trigger threshold is not exceeded, then the monitor server can wait for more endpoint data to be received, per block 302. If the trigger level is exceeded, then the monitor server can access an action/response profile and perform the appropriate action, per blocks 314 and 316 and as discussed in more detail herein. For instance, an action profile can be stored in a database or memory circuit that is accessible by the monitor server (Col.11, lines 31-50).
c) Applicant also asserts (page 10 of remarks): Antoun and Liu do not teach the claimed features "wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location; and ... the second threshold ... is associated with a second error source location; selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of the plurality of thresholds is met by the count" as recited in claim 1.
d) However, Examiner very kindly directs applicant to Liu reference where teaches, first trigger threshold based on registration status and first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (i.e. first source of the problem), second trigger threshold based on registration status and a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (i.e. second source of the problem) and trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels; therefore either the first or second trigger threshold may be less/higher than the other threshold (Col.7, lines 18-35). Also, identifying and filtering (i.e. therefore selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50).
e) Applicant further asserts (page 10 of remarks): Liu cannot teach "wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location; and ... wherein the second threshold ... is associated with a second error source location; selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of the plurality of thresholds is met by the count," as recited in claim.
f) However, Examiner very kindly point out to Liu reference which teaches, the action profiles can specify multiple trigger thresholds for the same components and for the same entity. The trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels). For example, an action profile for an ISP might include a first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (first criteria) and a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (second criteria). Moreover, the action profiles can also specify different actions for each of the trigger thresholds. For instance the example first trigger threshold might be deemed to have a relatively low priority. The second trigger threshold might be deemed to have a higher priority, and therefore, be associated with an action involving the transmission of a text (SMS) message to a specific administrator (Col.7, lines 18-35). Also, a filtering and grouping algorithm 208 can be applied to generate candidate problem sources and their linked endpoint subgroups 212. In addition to information from the list of endpoints 202, list of the potential problem sources 206, and connection matrix 204, data specifying potential problems with endpoints 210 can be used in the filtering and group algorithm. For example, the problematic endpoint data 210 might identify endpoints that did not provide registration messages within a set time window (e.g., 10 minutes). The filtering and grouping algorithm can identify candidate subgroups for these identified endpoints. The subgroups can be generated by first identifying problem sources associated with the endpoints identified in endpoint data 210. Working backward from the problem sources, the associated endpoints can then be identified. The resulting data set 212 is a set of candidate sources and their respective subgroup(s). A probabilistic determination 214 can then be made for each of the candidate problem sources specified in the data set 212. In certain embodiments, the result can be a probability that each of the potential problem sources is causing one or more of the problems identified in the problematic endpoint data 210. In some cases there may be multiple different problems associated with a single potential problem source. For example, some endpoints associated with a potential problem source might report call quality issues while other endpoints associated with the same potential problem source might be identified as having lost connectivity with an SIP server. In some instances, the algorithm could be configured to calculate a separate likelihood for each set of endpoints and associated problem. Depending upon the configuration for the trigger thresholds, each of these separate likelihoods might have a different trigger threshold level, or they could be aggregated and the result compared to a trigger threshold level (Col.9, lines 27-61). Further, the monitor server can be configured to make probabilistic determinations for problem sources corresponding to the parsed endpoint devices, per block 308. For example, the monitor server can be configured to determine the likelihood that various potential problem sources have an issue with their functionality. The monitor server can then determine whether or not a corresponding trigger threshold is exceeded, per block 312. This can include, for example, comparing the determined probability to a threshold probability level. As discussed herein, there can be multiple trigger thresholds for each problem source and each trigger threshold can correspond to a different indicated problem (e.g., call quality and connectivity loss). If the trigger threshold is not exceeded, then the monitor server can wait for more endpoint data to be received, per block 302. If the trigger level is exceeded, then the monitor server can access an action/response profile and perform the appropriate action, per blocks 314 and 316 and as discussed in more detail herein. For instance, an action profile can be stored in a database or memory circuit that is accessible by the monitor server (Col.11, lines 31-50).
g) Applicant further asserts: Antoun and Liu, alone or in combination, do not teach the features "comparing the quantity with a first threshold of expected registration requests and a second threshold of expected registration requests; selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network, wherein: a first network location is selected as a source of error if the quantity is above the first threshold; a second network location is selected as the source of error if the quantity is below the second threshold; and the first threshold is higher than the second threshold" as recited in the claim 1.
h) However, Examiner very kindly point out to Antoun reference that teaches, comparing the count with threshold number (Col.11, lines 60-67). In addition, Liu teaches, first trigger threshold based on registration status and first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (i.e. first source of the problem), second trigger threshold based on registration status and a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (i.e. second source of the problem) and trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels; therefore either the first or second trigger threshold may be less/higher than the other threshold (Col.7, lines 18-35). Also, identifying and filtering (i.e. therefore selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50).
i) Applicant's arguments with regards to dependent claims are based on the deficiency of the references to support the limitations of independent claims. The arguments are respectfully traversed for the same reason(s) as stated above for rejection of independent claims.
4. Therefore, the limitations of the claims are met and the rejection is made final.
Double Patenting
5. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
A) Claims 1-6, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 17-18, 20, 23, 26-27 and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2 in view of Liu (US 9,935,857 B1).
Instant application No. 17/536846
U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2
1. A method comprising: determining, by a computing device, a count of a quantity of registration requests received by a server; comparing, by the computing device, the count with a plurality of thresholds, wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location; and a second threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location; selecting one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count, and sending a network alert indicating the selected source of error as source of error in the communication network.
1. A method comprising: determining, by a computing device and for a plurality of repeating time intervals, a quantity of registration requests received by a server during each of the repeating time intervals; determining, based on the quantity of registration requests received by the server during each of the repeating time intervals, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server; retrieving, for a recent repeating time interval, a quantity of recent registration requests received by the server; determining a source of an error based on determining whether the quantity of recent registration requests satisfies a first threshold or a second threshold of the expected quantity of registration requests, wherein the quantity of recent registration requests satisfying the first threshold is associated with a first source of error and the quantity of recent registration requests satisfying the second threshold is associated with a second source of error; and sending a network alert indicating the determined source of the error.
The claim 1 of instant application encompass the same subject matter except “selecting one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count.”
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches selecting one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50, identifying and filtering (i.e. selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to implement US 9,935,857 B1 because it was notoriously well known to provide a method and/or system for use with a system that includes a plurality of SIP servers that are configured and arranged to provide services for a respective set of endpoints and detect potential problem sources for the connectivity problems.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitation from claim 1 of the current application made these claim as a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2 and claim 1 of the current application is not patentably distinct from each other.
B) Claims 2-6 of instant application correspond to claims 4,5,7,10-12 of allowed U.S. patent 11,223,945 B2.
C) The claim 8 of instant application encompass the same subject matter except “select one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count.”
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches select one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50, identifying and filtering (i.e. selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to implement US 9,935,857 B1 because it was notoriously well known to provide a method and/or system for use with a system that includes a plurality of SIP servers that are configured and arranged to provide services for a respective set of endpoints and detect potential problem sources for the connectivity problems.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitation from claim 1 of the current application made these claim as a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2 and claim 1 of the current application is not patentably distinct from each other.
D) Claims 9-11 of instant application correspond to claims 17, 18, and 20 of allowed U.S. patent 11,223,945 B2.
E) The claim 15 of instant application encompass the same subject matter except “selecting one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count.”
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches selecting one of the two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold of the plurality of threshold is met by count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50, identifying and filtering (i.e. selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to implement US 9,935,857 B1 because it was notoriously well known to provide a method and/or system for use with a system that includes a plurality of SIP servers that are configured and arranged to provide services for a respective set of endpoints and detect potential problem sources for the connectivity problems.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitation from claim 1 of the current application made these claim as a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,945 B2 and claim 1 of the current application is not patentably distinct from each other.
F) Claims 16-18 of instant application correspond to claims 26, 27, and 29 of allowed U.S. patent 11,223,945 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A) Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme Antoun (US 9,026,110 B1) in view of Liu (US 9,935857 B1).
As per claim 1, Nehme Antoun teaches a method comprising: determining, by a computing device, a count of a quantity of registration requests received by a server during (Col.12, lines 1-15, determining by the device a count of number/quantity of registration requests received by service provider network (i.e. server)); comparing, by the computing device, the count with a plurality of thresholds (Col.11, lines 60-67, comparing the count with threshold number).
However, Nehme Antoun does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location: and a second threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location; selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of expected registration requests the plurality of thresholds is met by the count, and sending a network alert indicating the selected source of error as a source of error in the communication network.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests (Col.7, lines 18-35, first trigger threshold based on registration status), wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location (Col.7, lines 18-35, first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (i.e. first source of the problem)): and a second threshold of expected registration requests (Col.7, lines 18-35, second trigger threshold based on registration status), wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location (Col.7, lines 18-35,a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (i.e. second source of the problem) and trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels; thus either the first or second trigger threshold may be less/higher than the other threshold); selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of expected registration requests the plurality of thresholds is met by the count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50, identifying and filtering (i.e. selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count), and sending a network alert indicating the selected source of error as a source of error in the communication network (Col.2, lines 1-10, transmitting, to the specified entity, a notification (i.e. network alert) that identifies a corresponding potential problem source from the identified potential problem sources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Liu into invention of Nehme Antoun in order to detect when expected registration or presence status events are missing and then correlate the presence status against alert criteria to identify potential problem source.
As per claim 8, Nehme Antoun teaches an apparatus comprising: one or more processors (Col.8, lines 42-45, processor); and memory storing instruction (Col.8, lines 42-45 memory) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine a count of a quantity of registration requests received by a server during (Col.12, lines 1-15, determining by the device a count of number/quantity of registration requests received by service provider network (i.e. server)); comparing the count with a plurality of thresholds (Col.11, lines 60-67, comparing the count with threshold number).
However, Nehme Antoun does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location: and a second threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location; select one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of expected registration requests the plurality of thresholds is met by the count, and send a network alert indicating the selected source of error as a source of error in the communication network.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests (Col.7, lines 18-35, first trigger threshold based on registration status), wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location (Col.7, lines 18-35, first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (i.e. first source of the problem)): and a second threshold of expected registration requests (Col.7, lines 18-35, second trigger threshold based on registration status), wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location (Col.7, lines 18-35,a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (i.e. second source of the problem) and trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels; thus either the first or second trigger threshold may be less/higher than the other threshold); select one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of expected registration requests the plurality of thresholds is met by the count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50, identifying and filtering (i.e. selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count), and send a network alert indicating the selected source of error as a source of error in the communication network (Col.2, lines 1-10, transmitting, to the specified entity, a notification (i.e. network alert) that identifies a corresponding potential problem source from the identified potential problem sources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Liu into invention of Nehme Antoun in order to detect when expected registration or presence status events are missing and then correlate the presence status against alert criteria to identify potential problem source.
As per claim 15, Nehme Antoun teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (Col.14, lines 14-15, computer-readable media storing instructions for storing programs and instructions) that, when executed, cause:
determining a count of a quantity of registration requests received by a server during (Col.12, lines 1-15, determining by the device a count of number/quantity of registration requests received by service provider network (i.e. server)); comparing the count with a plurality of thresholds (Col.11, lines 60-67, comparing the count with threshold number).
However, Nehme Antoun does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location: and a second threshold of expected registration requests, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location; selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of expected registration requests the plurality of thresholds is met by the count, and sending a network alert indicating the selected source of error as a source of error in the communication network.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu teaches wherein the plurality comprises: a first threshold of expected registration requests (Col.7, lines 18-35, first trigger threshold based on registration status), wherein the first threshold is associated with a first error source location (Col.7, lines 18-35, first trigger threshold relating to a percentage of endpoints having poor call quality (i.e. first source of the problem)): and a second threshold of expected registration requests (Col.7, lines 18-35, second trigger threshold based on registration status), wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and is associated with a second error source location (Col.7, lines 18-35,a second trigger threshold relating to a probability that an ISP is a cause of a loss of connectivity for endpoints (i.e. second source of the problem) and trigger thresholds can be for the same criteria at different levels or for different criteria (with the same or different levels; thus either the first or second trigger threshold may be less/higher than the other threshold); selecting one of two possible sources of error in a communication network based on which threshold, of expected registration requests the plurality of thresholds is met by the count (Col.9, lines 27-61 and Col.11, lines 31-50, identifying and filtering (i.e. selecting) possible problem/error sources in the communication network based on trigger threshold of multiple trigger thresholds exceeds or met by level/count), and sending a network alert indicating the selected source of error as a source of error in the communication network (Col.2, lines 1-10, transmitting, to the specified entity, a notification (i.e. network alert) that identifies a corresponding potential problem source from the identified potential problem sources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Liu into invention of Nehme Antoun in order to detect when expected registration or presence status events are missing and then correlate the presence status against alert criteria to identify potential problem source.
B) Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme Antoun (US 9,026,110 B1) in view of Liu (US 9,935857 B1) and further in view of Breau (US 8391208 B1).
As per claim 2 as applied to claim 1 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach, wherein the first threshold is an upper boundary of a range of an expected quantity of registration requests and the second threshold is a lower boundary of the range of the expected quantity of registration requests.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches wherein the first threshold is an upper boundary of a range of an expected quantity of registration requests and the second threshold is a lower boundary of the range of the expected quantity of registration requests (Breau, Col.5, lines 31-40, number of registration requests going above predefined threshold then the higher peak value (i.e. upper boundary) and when number of registration requests going below predefined threshold then lower peak value (i.e. lower boundary)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 3 as applied to claim 1 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach storing a registration history comprising a historical quantity of registration requests received by the server; and determining, based on the registration history, the first threshold of expected registration requests and the second threshold of expected registration requests.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches storing a registration history (Breau, Col.4, lines 6-11, storing registration history) comprising a historical quantity of registration requests received by the server (Breau, Col.5, lines 56-65, predefined or expected number of registrations requests comprises determining a history of number of registrations requests received by home agent); and determining, based on the registration history, the first threshold of expected registration requests and the second threshold of expected registration requests (Breau, Col.5, lines 56-65, the threshold(s) of the predefined or expected number of registration request based on history number of registration requests received by the home agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 4 as applied to claim 1 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach determining, based on a re-registration period within a time interval, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches determining, based on a re-registration period within a time interval, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server (Breau, Col.7, lines 42-57, determining based on re-registration duration or period within the time length (i.e. every 60 mins) the predicted number of registration requests received by home agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 5 as applied to claim 1 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach a quantity of terminals registered with a network associated with the server, and a ratio between an upper boundary and a lower boundary of a re-registration period within a time interval.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches a quantity of terminals registered with a network associated with the server (Breau, Col.3, lines 5-8, number or quantity of electronic devices request registration with home agent), and a ratio between an upper boundary and a lower boundary of a re-registration period within a time interval (Breau, Col.8, lines 38-49 and Col.5 lines 31-40, lines , percent or ratio between peak value of registration lifetime of re-registration period over period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 7 as applied to claim 1 above, Breau further teaches wherein: the count of the quantity of registration requests is received by the server during time interval, and the second the count of the quantity of registration requests is received by the server during a second time interval (Breau, Col.3, lines 22-31, home agent may smooth and spread peaks of registration requests (i.e. first, second, or more) by varying the duration of the registration lifetime returned in the registration reply message during peak registration periods. The home agent may analyze current registration request loads and system resource availability periodically, for example every 10 mS, every 100 mS, or some other period, to determine the registration lifetimes rather than performing this analysis during every registration request. Alternatively, the home agent may perform this analysis every 10 registration requests, every 100 registration requests, or some other number of registration requests).
As per claim 9 as applied to claim 8 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach, wherein the first threshold is an upper boundary of a range of an expected quantity of registration requests and the second threshold is a lower boundary of the range of the expected quantity of registration requests.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches wherein the first threshold is an upper boundary of a range of an expected quantity of registration requests and the second threshold is a lower boundary of the range of the expected quantity of registration requests (Breau, Col.5, lines 31-40, number of registration requests going above predefined threshold then the higher peak value (i.e. upper boundary) and when number of registration requests going below predefined threshold then lower peak value (i.e. lower boundary)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 10 as applied to claim 8 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach storing a registration history comprising a historical quantity of registration requests received by the server; and determining, based on the registration history, the first threshold of expected registration requests and the second threshold of expected registration requests.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches storing a registration history (Breau, Col.4, lines 6-11, storing registration history) comprising a historical quantity of registration requests received by the server (Breau, Col.5, lines 56-65, predefined or expected number of registrations requests comprises determining a history of number of registrations requests received by home agent); and determining, based on the registration history, the first threshold of expected registration requests and the second threshold of expected registration requests (Breau, Col.5, lines 56-65, the threshold(s) of the predefined or expected number of registration request based on history number of registration requests received by the home agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 11 as applied to claim 8 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach determining, based on a re-registration period within a time interval, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches determining, based on a re-registration period within a time interval, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server (Breau, Col.7, lines 42-57, determining based on re-registration duration or period within the time length (i.e. every 60 mins) the predicted number of registration requests received by home agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 12 as applied to claim 8 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach a quantity of terminals registered with a network associated with the server, and a ratio between an upper boundary and a lower boundary of a re-registration period within a time interval.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches a quantity of terminals registered with a network associated with the server (Breau, Col.3, lines 5-8, number or quantity of electronic devices request registration with home agent), and a ratio between an upper boundary and a lower boundary of a re-registration period within a time interval (Breau, Col.8, lines 38-49 and Col.5 lines 31-40, lines , percent or ratio between peak value of registration lifetime of re-registration period over period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 14 as applied to claim 8 above, Breau further teaches wherein: the count of the quantity of registration requests is received by the server during time interval, and the second the count of the quantity of registration requests is received by the server during a second time interval (Breau, Col.3, lines 22-31, home agent may smooth and spread peaks of registration requests (i.e. first, second, or more) by varying the duration of the registration lifetime returned in the registration reply message during peak registration periods. The home agent may analyze current registration request loads and system resource availability periodically, for example every 10 mS, every 100 mS, or some other period, to determine the registration lifetimes rather than performing this analysis during every registration request. Alternatively, the home agent may perform this analysis every 10 registration requests, every 100 registration requests, or some other number of registration requests).
As per claim 16 as applied to claim 15 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach, wherein the first threshold is an upper boundary of a range of an expected quantity of registration requests and the second threshold is a lower boundary of the range of the expected quantity of registration requests.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches wherein the first threshold is an upper boundary of a range of an expected quantity of registration requests and the second threshold is a lower boundary of the range of the expected quantity of registration requests (Breau, Col.5, lines 31-40, number of registration requests going above predefined threshold then the higher peak value (i.e. upper boundary) and when number of registration requests going below predefined threshold then lower peak value (i.e. lower boundary)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 17 as applied to claim 15 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach storing a registration history comprising a historical quantity of registration requests received by the server; and determining, based on the registration history, the first threshold of expected registration requests and the second threshold of expected registration requests.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches storing a registration history (Breau, Col.4, lines 6-11, storing registration history) comprising a historical quantity of registration requests received by the server (Breau, Col.5, lines 56-65, predefined or expected number of registrations requests comprises determining a history of number of registrations requests received by home agent); and determining, based on the registration history, the first threshold of expected registration requests and the second threshold of expected registration requests (Breau, Col.5, lines 56-65, the threshold(s) of the predefined or expected number of registration request based on history number of registration requests received by the home agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 18 as applied to claim 15 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach determining, based on a re-registration period within a time interval, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches determining, based on a re-registration period within a time interval, an expected quantity of registration requests received by the server (Breau, Col.7, lines 42-57, determining based on re-registration duration or period within the time length (i.e. every 60 mins) the predicted number of registration requests received by home agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 19 as applied to claim 15 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach a quantity of terminals registered with a network associated with the server, and a ratio between an upper boundary and a lower boundary of a re-registration period within a time interval.
In the same field of endeavor, Breau teaches a quantity of terminals registered with a network associated with the server (Breau, Col.3, lines 5-8, number or quantity of electronic devices request registration with home agent), and a ratio between an upper boundary and a lower boundary of a re-registration period within a time interval (Breau, Col.8, lines 38-49 and Col.5 lines 31-40, lines , percent or ratio between peak value of registration lifetime of re-registration period over period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Breau into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order for automatically managing mobile Internet Protocol re-registration to allow the mobile device to stay seamlessly connected to the Internet.
As per claim 21 as applied to claim 15 above, Breau further teaches wherein: the count of the quantity of registration requests is received by the server during time interval, and the second the count of the quantity of registration requests is received by the server during a second time interval (Breau, Col.3, lines 22-31, home agent may smooth and spread peaks of registration requests (i.e. first, second, or more) by varying the duration of the registration lifetime returned in the registration reply message during peak registration periods. The home agent may analyze current registration request loads and system resource availability periodically, for example every 10 mS, every 100 mS, or some other period, to determine the registration lifetimes rather than performing this analysis during every registration request. Alternatively, the home agent may perform this analysis every 10 registration requests, every 100 registration requests, or some other number of registration requests).
As per claim 22 as applied to claim 1 above, Breau further teaches wherein sending the network alert indicating a first device as the source of error if the count is above the first threshold; or sending the network alert indicating a second device as the source of error if the count is below the second threshold (Breau, Col.5, lines 31-40, number of registration requests going above predefined threshold (i.e. first threshold) and when number of registration requests going below predefined threshold (i.e. second threshold)).
C) Claims 6, 13, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehme Antoun (US 9,026,110 B1) in view of Liu (US 9,935857 B1) and further in view of Bellam (US 2020/0195729 A1).
As per claim 6 as applied to claim 1 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the first error source location is the server and wherein the second error source location is an intervening access network via which the registration requests are received by the server.
In the same field of endeavor, Bellam teaches wherein the first error source location is the server and wherein the second error source location is an intervening access network via which the registration requests are received by the server (Bellam, ¶0035, errors classified by source of errors such as network issues, server error, etc.; therefore, first source of error could be server and second source of error could be network access).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Bellam into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order to diagnose issues arising on user equipment (UE), including issues caused by web-based applications to track the problem and identify the cause of error (Bellam, background).
As per claim 13 as applied to claim 8 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the first error source location is the server and wherein the second error source location is an intervening access network via which the registration requests are received by the server.
In the same field of endeavor, Bellam teaches wherein the first error source location is the server and wherein the second error source location is an intervening access network via which the registration requests are received by the server (Bellam, ¶0035, errors classified by source of errors such as network issues, server error, etc.; therefore, first source of error could be server and second source of error could be network access).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Bellam into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order to diagnose issues arising on user equipment (UE), including issues caused by web-based applications to track the problem and identify the cause of error (Bellam, background).
As per claim 20 as applied to claim 15 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the first error source location is the server and wherein the second error source location is an intervening access network via which the registration requests are received by the server.
In the same field of endeavor, Bellam teaches wherein the first error source location is the server and wherein the second error source location is an intervening access network via which the registration requests are received by the server (Bellam, ¶0035, errors classified by source of errors such as network issues, server error, etc.; therefore, first source of error could be server and second source of error could be network access).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Bellam into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order to diagnose issues arising on user equipment (UE), including issues caused by web-based applications to track the problem and identify the cause of error (Bellam, background).
As per claim 23 as applied to claim 1 above, Nehme Antoun in view of Liu does not explicitly teach sending, to the selected source of error, a message confirming the source of error; and receiving, from the selected source of error, a confirmation of the source of error, wherein sending of the network alert is based on the confirmation.
In the same field of endeavor, Bellam teaches sending, to the selected source of error, a message confirming the source of error; and receiving, from the selected source of error, a confirmation of the source of error, wherein sending of the network alert is based on the confirmation (Bellam, ¶0035, sending response message including the source of detected error and receiving source of error and check the source of detected error based on the error codes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Bellam into invention of Nehme Antoun and Liu in order to diagnose issues arising on user equipment (UE), including issues caused by web-based applications to track the problem and identify the cause of error (Bellam, background).
Conclusion
7. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIDEH MADANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday; 9 AM to 5 PM EST.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/FARIDEH MADANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643