DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 21-26 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15-16, 19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20220124477 A1) in view of Forsberg et al. (US Pub. 20140133362 A1) in further view of Power et al. (US Pub. 20200287821 A1).
Re Claims 1, 8, and 15, Gupta discloses a system comprising: one or more processors (910/902); and memory (904) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
establishing a first portion of a communication over a first network at a first time (Figs. 2, 4 and 5, connecting to a first network, e.g. 5G, during a period) [0021, 0079, 0014];
establishing a second portion of the communication over a second network at a second time different from the first time (connecting to a second network using a different type of technology e.g. 4G than the first network during another period) [0021, 0079, 0014];
accessing, by a server (102), an identifier of a user equipment (UE) associated with the communication, the identifier indicating a type of technology of the first network at the first time [0021-25, 0014];
determining, by the TAS, a first charge for the UE associated with the communication over the first network and a second charge for the UE associated with the communication over the second network (Figs. 2 and 5, step 210 show determining the different charges for using different types of networks) [0025, 0040].
But Gupta doesn’t explicitly teach determining, by the server, a change in the identifier associated with the UE.
However, Forsberg discloses determining, by the server, a change in the identifier associated with the UE based at least in part on comparing a first P-Access-Network-Information (PANI) received in a first Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message with a second PANI received in a second SIP message (correlating the first and second SIP containing first and second information e.g. identifiers, IMIS, ICID etc, the identifiers changes depending on the various condition of the call legs like the network type and the area) [0013-14, 0024-25], the change in the identifier including a change from a first identifier associated with the UE to a second identifier associated with the UE (based on the trigger, an identifier can changed from one form tied to the terminal/UE to another form tied to the terminal/UE that depends on the various condition of the call legs.) [0013, 0024-26];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing multiple network access used for a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta with Forsberg to ensure proper record keeping for using different network, thus, improving accounting accuracy for usage billing.
But Gupta and Forsberg don’t explicitly teach wherein the server comprises a Telephony Application Server (TAS) associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) and the TAS includes at least one of: an online charging (Ro) interface and an offline charging (Rf) interface that at least implements one or more of a policy or a control used to determine charges to the UE for the communication over the first network and the second network;
determining, by the TAS via the at least one of the online charging (Ro) interface or the offline charging (Rf) interface included in the TAS, a first charge and a second charge;
However, Power discloses (Fig. 10) the server comprises a Telephony Application Server (TAS) (1014) associated with an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) (1018) and the TAS includes at least one of: an online charging (Ro) interface (Gy of 1024) and an offline charging (Rf) interface (Gz of 1020) that at least implements one or more of a policy or a control used to determine charges to the UE for the communication over the first network and the second network [0105-106];
determining, by the TAS via the at least one of the online charging (Ro) interface or the offline charging (Rf) interface included in the TAS, a first charge for the UE associated with the communication over the first network and a second charge for the UE associated with the communication over the second network (private vs public network for online and offline billing using the server 1014)[0105-0106];
Since, all are analogous arts addressing multiple network access used for a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta and Forsberg with Power to ensure proper billings for users, thus, improving system charging accuracy.
Claim 1 differs from claim 8 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art further Gupta discloses a method (Fig. 2).
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 15 differs from claim 8 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Gupta further discloses a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform operations (Figs. 1 and 9).
Forsberg further discloses determining, by the TAS based at least in part on comparing a first P-Access-Network-Information (PANI) received in a first Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message with a second PANI received in a second SIP message, (correlating the first and second SIP containing first and second information e.g. identifiers, IMIS, ICID etc, the identifiers changes depending on the various condition of the call legs like the network type and the area) [0013-14, 0024-25], a change in the identifier associated with the UE based at least in part on comparing a first P-Access- Network-Information (PANI) received in a first Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message with a second PANI received in a second SIP message, (based on the trigger, an identifier can changed from one form tied to the terminal/UE to another form tied to the terminal/UE that depends on the various condition of the call legs.) [0013, 0024-26];
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Re Claims 2, 9, and 16, Gupta discloses combining, the first charge and the second charge; and
determining at least one of a call detail record, an online charge, or an offline charge for the UE based at least in part on the combining (Figs. 2 and 5 show a record of different charges for using different types of networks) [0025, 0029, 0040].
Re Claims 5, 12, and 19, Gupta discloses the first network comprises a fifth generation telecommunications network (5G network) [0014, 0019];
the second network comprises a fourth generation telecommunications network (LTE, 4G network) [0014, 0019]; and
the communication is associated with a Voice over New Radio (VoNR) communication or Video over New Radio (ViNR) (new radio NR, which must include voice or video) [0043].
For claim 21, Gupta as modified by Forsberg and Power, Power further discloses an online charging system (OCS) of the TAS implements one or more polices of the Ro interface to determine at least one of the first charge or the second charge [0105-106]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claim 22, Gupta as modified by Forsberg and Power, Power further discloses a charging gateway (CG) of the TAS implements one or more polices of the Rf interface to determine at least one of the first charge or the second charge [0105-106]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claim 23, Gupta as modified by Forsberg and Power, Power further discloses a charging gateway (CG) of the TAS implements one or more polices of the Ro interface to determine at least one of the first charge or the second charge [0105-106]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Re claim 24, Gupta as modified by Forsberg and Power, Forsberg further discloses generating, by the TAS, a call detail record indicating the change in the identifier and a period of time associated with each of the first network and the second network (create a CDR based on the trigger, an identifier can changed from one form tied to the terminal/UE to another form tied to the terminal/UE that depends on the various condition of the call legs.) [0013-14, 0024-26]; and
communicating, by the TAS, the call detail record to a charging system to enable the charging system to determine the first charge and the second charge using rating logic that accounts for each change during the communication [0013-14, 0024-26]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20220124477 A1) in view of Forsberg et al. (US Pub. 20140133362 A1) in further view of Power et al. (US Pub. 20200287821 A1) in further view of Guo et al. (US Pub. 20240276312 A1).
Re Claims 4, 11, and 18, Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Guo.
Guo discloses establishing the second portion of the communication over the second network at the second time is caused by Evolved Packet System Fallback (EPSFB) from the first network to the second network (communication handover from first network to a second network cause by EPSFB) [0050-51, 0055, 0076].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing multiple network access used for a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta,Forsberg and Power with Guo to ensure proper transfer of communication session to using different network, thus, improving connection reliability.
Re Claims 7 and 14, Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Guo.
Guo discloses determining, by the server and based at least in part on the identifier associated with the UE indicating a type of technology associated with a message received by the server, that a communication request associated with the message comprises Evolved Packet System Fallback (EPSFB) from the first network to the second network (communication handover from first network to a second network cause by EPSFB) [0050-51, 0055, 0076];
sending, by the server, information indicating the EPSFB to a charging system [0073-76]; and
receiving, by the server, a charge for the UE associated with a communication to another UE over the second network based at least in part on the information indicating the EPSFB sent to the charging system [0050-51, 0055, 0076].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing multiple network access used for a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta, Forsberg and Power with Guo to ensure proper transfer of communication session to using different network, thus, improving connection reliability.
Re claim 25, Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Forsberg further discloses storing, by the TAS, the first PANI received in the first SIP message [0013-14, 0024-26]; and
Forsberg further discloses determining, by the TAS based at least in part on comparing the stored first PANI with the second PANI received in the second SIP message, from the first network to the second network has occurred [0013-14, 0024-26].
But Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Guo.
determining that Evolved Packet System Fallback (EPSFB) from the first network to the second network has occurred [0050-51, 0055, 0076].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing multiple network access used for a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta, Forsberg and Power with Guo to ensure proper transfer of communication session to using different network, thus, improving connection reliability.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al. (US Pub. 20220124477 A1) in view of Forsberg et al. (US Pub. 20140133362 A1) in further view of Power et al. (US Pub. 20200287821 A1) in further view of Bae et al. (US Pub. 20220312524 A1).
Re claim 26, Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
Forsberg further discloses sending, by the TAS, information indicating the change in the identifier to at least one of a machine learned model or a server of the first network [0013-14, 0024-26];
But Gupta, as modified by Forsberg and Power, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Bae.
Bae discloses wherein the information is usable to determine network parameters that reduce instances of fallback from the first network to the second network for future communications [0064, 0237-240].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing multiple network access used for a mobile device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gupta, Forsberg and Power with Bae to ensure AI enabled intelligent communication session to reduce communication problems, thus, improving network connections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409