DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Remarks
The present Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/24/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 7, 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) On line 4 of claim 1, replace “in a case that” with --based on-- after “operation”; (“Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” See MPEP 2103 I. C);
b) In line 5 of claim 1, delete “the following” after “of”;
c) In lines 19-21 of claim 1, delete “; and sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program” after “message”; (it is not clear how and/or why, “wherein the sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program comprises… sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program”);
d) On line 6 of claim 7, replace “in a case that” with --based on-- after “operation”;
e) In lines 3-4 of claim 7, replace “implements the following steps” with --to perform-- after “processor, ”;
f) In line 7 of claim 7, delete “the following” after “of”;
g) In lines 21-23 of claim 7, delete “; and sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program” after “message”;
h) On line 5 of claim 13, replace “in a case that” with --based on-- after “operation”;
i) In line 3of claim 13, replace “implements the following steps” with --to perform-- after “processor,”;
j) In line 6 of claim 13, delete “the following” after “of”;
k) In lines 20-22 of claim 13, delete “; and sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program” after “message”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite, “sending the first call request message through a second PS domain; registering in the second PS domain again, and sending the first call request message through the second PS domain, wherein the registering in the second PS domain again comprises refreshing a registration through detaching and attaching in the second PS domain”. However, it is not clear why “registering in the second PS domain again, and sending the first call request message through the second PS domain” (regardless of “wherein the registering in the second PS domain again comprises refreshing a registration through detaching and attaching in the second PS domain”).
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-11, and 14-17 is/are also rejected by the virtue of it/their dependency on claims 1, 7 and 13, respectively.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite, “after the sending a first call request message through a first PS domain, before the first call initiation anomaly occurs, the method further comprises: in a case that a second call initiation anomaly occurs, falling back to a second core network from a first core network device, and sending the first call request message through the second PS domain…” However, it is not clear why the second call is initiated “after the sending a first call request message through a first PS domain, before the first call initiation anomaly occurs”.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 recite, “after the performing a first operation, the method further comprises: performing a second operation in a case that a third call initiation anomaly occurs… wherein the second operation comprises any one of the following: disabling the VoLTE function, and sending the first call request message through the CS domain…” It is not clear why and under what condition(s) the third call initiation anomaly occurs when wherein the first operation is to send the first call request message through the second PS domain. Moreover, it is not clear when the VoLTE function took place and then to disabling the VoLTE function; and the relation between the first PS domain/second PS domain and the VoLTE function is not clear.
Furthermore, claims 4, 10 and 16 recite the limitation "the VoLTE function" in line 6 of claim 4, line 7 of claim 10, and line 8 of claim 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LOTFALLAH et al. -US 20200162879 A1- (hereinafter Lotfallah).
Regarding claim 1, Lotfallah discloses a method for processing a call initiation anomaly (FIGS. 4A-4C), comprising:
sending a first call request message through a first packet switch PS domain (FIG. 4A-4C, par. 0086, “In block 402, the processor may attempt to establish an emergency call in a PS domain using a first RAT”); and
performing a first operation in a case that a first call initiation anomaly occurs, wherein the first operation comprises any one of the following (par. 0043, “In determination block 404, the processor may determine whether the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT failed”):
sending the first call request message through a second PS domain (par. 0088, “In response to determining that the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT succeeded (i.e., determination block 404=“No”), the processor may conduct the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT in block 408.”);
registering in the second PS domain again, and sending the first call request message through the second PS domain, wherein the registering in the second PS domain again comprises refreshing a registration through detaching and attaching in the second PS domain ; and sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program, wherein the first account corresponds to an account indicated by the first call request message; wherein the sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program comprises: determining the first account from the target application program according to the first call request message; and sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program (the limitations are optional and do not limit the scope of the claim, “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” See MPEP 2103 I. C).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Lotfallah discloses wherein the first PS domain and the second PS domain are different; and before the performing a first operation, the method further comprises: falling back to a second access network device from a first access network device, wherein the first access network device is an access network device corresponding to the first PS domain, and the second access network device is an access network device corresponding to the second PS domain (FIG. 4A-4C, par. 0089).
Regarding claim 7, Lotfallah discloses an electronic device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a program or instruction stored on the memory and runnable on the processor, wherein the program or instruction, when executed by the processor (FIG. 2 par. 0053-0055), implements the following steps:
sending a first call request message through a first packet switch PS domain (FIG. 4A-4C, par. 0086, “In block 402, the processor may attempt to establish an emergency call in a PS domain using a first RAT”); and
performing a first operation in a case that a first call initiation anomaly occurs, wherein the first operation comprises any one of the following (par. 0043, “In determination block 404, the processor may determine whether the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT failed”):
sending the first call request message through a second PS domain (par. 0088, “In response to determining that the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT succeeded (i.e., determination block 404=“No”), the processor may conduct the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT in block 408.”);
registering in the second PS domain again, and sending the first call request message through the second PS domain, wherein the registering in the second PS domain again comprises refreshing a registration through detaching and attaching in the second PS domain ; and sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program, wherein the first account corresponds to an account indicated by the first call request message; wherein the sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program comprises: determining the first account from the target application program according to the first call request message; and sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program (the limitations are optional and do not limit the scope of the claim, “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” See MPEP 2103 I. C).
Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, the claim is rejected for the same reason(s) as set forth claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, Lotfallah discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium, storing a program or instruction, wherein the program or instruction, when executed by a processor, implements the following steps:
sending a first call request message through a first packet switch PS domain (FIG. 4A-4C, par. 0086, “In block 402, the processor may attempt to establish an emergency call in a PS domain using a first RAT”); and
performing a first operation in a case that a first call initiation anomaly occurs, wherein the first operation comprises any one of the following (par. 0043, “In determination block 404, the processor may determine whether the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT failed”):
sending the first call request message through a second PS domain (par. 0088, “In response to determining that the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT succeeded (i.e., determination block 404=“No”), the processor may conduct the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT in block 408.”);
registering in the second PS domain again, and sending the first call request message through the second PS domain, wherein the registering in the second PS domain again comprises refreshing a registration through detaching and attaching in the second PS domain ; and sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program, wherein the first account corresponds to an account indicated by the first call request message; wherein the sending a second call request message to a first account through a target application program comprises: determining the first account from the target application program according to the first call request message; and sending the second call request message to the first account through the target application program (the limitations are optional and do not limit the scope of the claim, “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” See MPEP 2103 I. C).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, the claim is rejected for the same reason(s) as set forth claim 2 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5, 10-11 and 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 00 pm.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642