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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 11-17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. US Patent No.: 8,838, 078, hereinafter, “Shaffer” in view of Well-Known Art MPEP 2144.03 and Gende US Patent Pub. No.: 2007/0041513 A1 and Millen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0068796 A1, hereinafter, ‘Millen’.
Consider Claims 1, 12-13, Shaffer teaches a method for precise location-based routing of calls (i.e., “A Method and Apparatus of a device that converts an input telephone number based on the location of a telephone “ col. 1 lines 42-43, col. 3 lines 27-36 ), the method comprising: (the base station is met by the corresponding cellular network)receiving an indication that a user device has originated a call to a non- short code jurisdiction specific phone number (e.g., “the device receives the input telephone number…” – col. 1 lines 43-45, col. 3 lines 27-36 ), ;determining an origination location of the user device when the user device originated the call (“The device further determines if the telephone number is suitable to place the telephone call based on … a location of the device.”- col. 1 lines 47-49, col. 3 lines 27-36), wherein the origination location is a physical location of the user device when the user device originated the call(e.g., “As is known in the art, a local telephone number format depends on the local country for the local number. For example and in one embodiment, a local telephone number has a format of XXX-XXXX in the United States, XX XX XX XX in France, etc.” – col. 4 lines 13-17, see GPS and methods used to determine the physical location of the device – col. 8 lines 24-26 ); generating a location-based translated number comprising a first portion representing the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number and a second portion representing the origination location(e.g., “ e.g., this is met based on the international and domestic assist modules described in at least col. 5 line 47 – col. 6 line 3, see figure 2AB for numbering format, the conversion is further described in figure 4, ); and routing the location-based translated number to a jurisdiction-specific destination corresponding to both the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number and the origination location (e.g., this is met based on claim 4 - initiating the telephone call using the converted telephone number.).
However, Shaffer does not specifically teach wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is associated with a plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers, the plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers comprising a first call center associated with a first jurisdiction and a second call center associated with a second jurisdiction.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Mobile Switching Centers (MSCs) are jurisdiction-specific (i.e., call centers) are notoriously well known in the art. The physical and logical configuration of an MSC is strictly tied to the regulatory boundaries, numbering plans, and legal jurisdictions of the countries and states it operates within. Each MSC is responsible for managing a specific geographic region. When a mobile device travels outside an MSC's territory, the MSC coordinates a "handover" or "roaming" sequence with the MSC in the newly entered jurisdiction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is associated with a plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers, the plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers comprising a first call center associated with a first jurisdiction and a second call center associated with a second jurisdiction to comply with notoriously well know industry standard logic and hardware as one example.
For example, Gende claims in claim 3 of the published application noted above with respect to Gende “a plurality of emergency call centers having service areas including the location associated with the telephone number, with one of the emergency call center designated a primary emergency call center for that geographic location, and routing the call to the primary emergency call center.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is associated with a plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers, the plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers comprising a first call center associated with a first jurisdiction and a second call center associated with a second jurisdiction for the sake of addressing emergencies as another example.
Millen teaches “in prior art… routing a call to a mobile switching center having jurisdiction for a particular mobile phone number…” -0021 and a method to further improve upon the prior art method in 0022 – “ In the preferred embodiment, information stored in the home location register data base 14 includes at least one number to which a call 26 to a wireless subscriber's telephone 20 number is to be forwarded but also includes the identity of the mobile switching center, or a geographic division thereof, having "jurisdiction" for the wireless subscriber number to which a call 26 was placed.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is associated with a plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers, the plurality of jurisdiction-specific call centers comprising a first call center associated with a first jurisdiction and a second call center associated with a second jurisdiction for the purpose of properly billing as another example.
Consider Claims 2 and 14, Shaffer teaches wherein determining the location of the user device is based on a location provided by the user device and determined by one or more satellite-based location services running on the user device (see GPS and methods used to determine the physical location of the device – col. 8 lines 24-26).
Consider Claims 4 and 15, Shaffer teaches wherein the second portion of the location-based translated number representing the origination location comprises a numbering plan area (NPA) and a central office within the NPA (NXX) of the originating location (e.g., this is met based on the number format explained with respect to figure 2AB and the conversion explained in figure 4).
Consider Claims 5 and 16, Shaffer teaches wherein the first portion of the location- based translated number is the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number dialed by the user device(e.g., this is met based on the number format explained with respect to figure 2AB and the conversion explained in figure 4).
Consider Claims 6 and 17, Shaffer teaches wherein the first portion of the location- based translated number is a short code sequence representing the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number (i.e., short code “sequence” is met based on the number format explained with respect to figure 2AB and the conversion explained in figure 4, If the telephone number matches the pattern, process 400 determines that the telephone number matches the rule at block 414. In one embodiment, process 400 determines a rules match by matching the first character in the telephone number to the first character position in the pattern. Furthermore, some patterns make take precedence over other patterns for that country. For example and in one embodiment, a pattern for an emergency number (e.g., "911"), would take precedence over a pattern for a typical local number plus area code.).
Consider Claim 11, Schaffer teaches the claimed invention except wherein determining the location of the user device is based on identifying one or more base stations used by the user device to originate the call.
The Examiner respectfully submits it is notoriously well known in the art to determine the location of the user device is based on identifying one or more base stations used by the user device to originate the call (e.g., triangulation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try determining the location of the user device is based on identifying one or more base stations used by the user device to originate the call for the purpose of identifying the user location.
Consider Claim 21, wherein the jurisdiction-specific destination is the first call center when the origination location is inside the first jurisdiction and the jurisdiction-specific destination is the second call center when the origination location is inside the second jurisdiction, is reject base on the same rational as claim 1 because it is clear that by definition a mobile device roams and claim 1 addresses determining a location and the ability to route calls based one the location of the mobile device with respect to the terminating points local the users location.
Consider Claim 22, Shaffer teaches wherein the second portion representing the origination location is appended to the first portion representing the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number to create the location-based translated number this is met based on the suggestions described in at least figure 2ab and figure 4.
Claim(s) 7 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. US Patent No.: 8,838, 078, hereinafter, “Shaffer” in view of Well-Known Art MPEP 2144.03 and Gende US Patent Pub. No.: 2007/0041513 A1 and Millen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0068796 A1, hereinafter, ‘Millen’ and further in view of Beck US Patent Pub. No.: 2011/0080871.
Consider Claim 7, Shaffer teaches the claimed invention except wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is a toll-free number.
However, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a toll-free number as one of the numbers based on the suggestions described in at least figure 2ab and figure 4 based on notion that toll free numbers are well known uniquely identified numbers and using simple substitution would yield predictable results.
Beck teaches “mobile switching centers 12 or gateway mobile switching center 22 may evaluate the VDC of "849" and append the same to a toll free phone number as an out-of-band signal. The toll free number is then routed to campaign management module 16 via public switched telephone network 24” – see at least 0049, 0051 and 0058-0059 (i.e., Beck addresses the use of toll free numbers with appendages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is a toll-free number for the purpose of facilitating bridge establishment in a telecommunications network.
Consider Claim 23, Shaffer et al. teach the claimed invention except wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is a toll-free number, and wherein the location-based translated number is routed to a toll-free service provider that routes the call to the jurisdiction-specific destination based on the second portion representing the origination location.
However, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a toll-free number as one of the numbers based on the suggestions described in at least figure 2ab and figure 4 based on notion that toll free numbers are well known uniquely identified numbers and using simple substitution would yield predictable results.
Beck teaches “mobile switching centers 12 or gateway mobile switching center 22 may evaluate the VDC of "849" and append the same to a toll free phone number as an out-of-band signal. The toll free number is then routed to campaign management module 16 via public switched telephone network 24” – see at least 0049, 0051 and 0058-0059 (i.e., Beck addresses the use of toll free numbers with appendages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the non-short code jurisdiction specific phone number is a toll-free number, and wherein the location-based translated number is routed to a toll-free service provider that routes the call to the jurisdiction-specific destination based on the second portion representing the origination location for the purpose of facilitating bridge establishment in a telecommunications network.
Claim(s) 8-10, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. US Patent No.: 8,838, 078, hereinafter, “Shaffer” in view of Well-Known Art MPEP 2144.03 and Gende US Patent Pub. No.: 2007/0041513 A1 and Millen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2006/0068796 A1, hereinafter, ‘Millen’ and further in view of Beck US Patent Pub. No.: 2011/0080871 and further in view of Jain US Patent Pub. No.: 2015/007853.
Consider Claim 8, Shaffer et al. teach the claimed invention except wherein routing the location-based translated number to the jurisdiction-specific destination comprises routing the location-based translated number to a session border controller.
Gende teaches a system and a method of associating an address with a cellular or other wireless handset or device, as well as with VoIP devices, so that users of these devices can have 9-1-1 calls routed to proper call centers in a manner similar to conventional circuit switched PSTN device users.
A Session Border Controller (SBC) is a dedicated network device or software application used to protect and manage real-time communication sessions (such as VoIP and video calling) at the boundary between two IP networks.
In analogous art, Jain teaches an application of an SBC wherein “…the session border controller (351) may perform signaling/encoding translation to allow the connection server (355) to process the VoIP calls…” -0145.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein routing the location-based translated number to the jurisdiction-specific destination comprises routing the location-based translated number to a session border controller that can handle, amongst other things, VOIP and internet based communication for the purpose of providing connections to users in different geographic regions.
Consider Claim 9, Shaffer et al. teaches the claimed invention except wherein the method further comprises appending the location-based translated number with a numeric toll-free indicator.
However, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a toll-free number as one of the numbers based on the suggestions described in at least figure 2ab and figure 4 based on notion that toll free numbers are well known uniquely identified numbers and using simple substitution would yield predictable results.
Beck teaches an application on toll-free appendages not by the illustration that“mobile switching centers 12 or gateway mobile switching center 22 may evaluate the VDC of "849" and append the same to a toll free phone number as an out-of-band signal. The toll free number is then routed to campaign management module 16 via public switched telephone network 24” – see at least 0049, 0051 and 0058-0059 (i.e., Beck addresses the use of toll free numbers with appendages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try appending the location-based translated number with a numeric toll-free indicator for the purpose of facilitating bridge establishment in a telecommunications network.
Consider Claims 10 and 18, Shaffer et al teach the claimed invention except wherein the method further comprises routing the location-based translated number to a toll free service provider based on a determination, by the session border controller, that the location-based translated number is appended with the numeric toll-free indicator.
However, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a toll-free number as one of the numbers based on the suggestions described in at least figure 2ab and figure 4 based on notion that toll free numbers are well known uniquely identified numbers and using simple substitution would yield predictable results.
Beck teaches an application on toll-free appendages not by the illustration that“mobile switching centers 12 or gateway mobile switching center 22 may evaluate the VDC of "849" and append the same to a toll free phone number as an out-of-band signal. The toll free number is then routed to campaign management module 16 via public switched telephone network 24” – see at least 0049, 0051 and 0058-0059 (i.e., Beck addresses the use of toll free numbers with appendages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try appending the location-based translated number with a numeric toll-free indicator for the purpose of facilitating bridge establishment in a telecommunications network.
Gende teaches a system and a method of associating an address with a cellular or other wireless handset or device, as well as with VoIP devices, so that users of these devices can have 9-1-1 calls routed to proper call centers in a manner similar to conventional circuit switched PSTN device users.
A Session Border Controller (SBC) is a dedicated network device or software application used to protect and manage real-time communication sessions (such as VoIP and video calling) at the boundary between two IP networks.
In analogous art, Jain teaches an application of an SBC wherein “…the session border controller (351) may perform signaling/encoding translation to allow the connection server (355) to process the VoIP calls…” -0145.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the method further comprises routing the location-based translated number to a toll free service provider based on a determination, by the session border controller, that the location-based translated number is appended with the numeric toll-free indicator for the purpose of providing connections to users in different geographic regions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights