Response to Amendment
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 .
The remark/response dated 11/10/25 has been received and made of record,
Applicant argument with respect claims 1, 8, 20 and 31 have fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reason.
With respect claims 1 and 8 , applicant alleges the cited art fails to disclose establishing a first IMS session with a second wireless communication device; and while the first IMS session is ongoing and without placing the first IMS session on hold, establishing a second IMS session with a third wireless communication device”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts Gonzalez de Langarica discloses while the first IMS session is ongoing and without placing the first IMS session on hold, establishing a second IMS session with a third wireless communication device (Fig. 3, par. 0052-0054, where the second network node 151 obtains input from the user indicating that the user wishes to add a participant to the ongoing call. The user input may e.g. be obtained by voice command from the user which may be provided to a UE connected to the second network node 151", i.e. while the first session is not put on hold another session.
In addition, Gonzalez de Langarica teaches the first network node 150 further sends, to the IMS node (140), a request to add the participant to one of the one or more ongoing call sessions for the first UE (120), wherein the request comprises the identifier for identifying the call session to which the participant is to be added and an identification of the participant to add to the ongoing call session(see pars. 0055, 0139)
Also examiner asserts as shown (Fig. 3 and 5, par. 0048 when user is engaged in a first call, which may also be referred to as a first call session, the call may be a call between a first UE 120 of the user and a second UE 121 of a first call participant". While the ongoing call session is a session between the first UE 120 and a second UE 121 is going, Gonzalez de Langarica contemplates several option/scenarios including obtaining request to add another caller/participant to call session( that is the first network node 150 may e.g. obtain the list of the one or more ongoing calls by using the IE “getListofCallsWhereUserIsInvolved” which may request an identity from the IMS node 140 and may return a list of ICID-s or session ids where user A, i.e. the first user, is currently involved, the request comprises the identifier for identifying the call session to which the participant is to be added and an identification of the participant to add to the ongoing call session). After that while session is ongoing and a participant is added to an ongoing call session or existing call for the first UE 120(see par. 0050, 0061-0065).
With respect claims 20 and 31 applicant asserts analogous arguments apply to independent claims 20 and 31. All the dependent claims are patentable for analogous reasons.
In response examiner asserts same response above with respect to claims 1 and 8 applies to claims 20 and 31.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-5, 8, 20-28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez de Langarica; et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220131913 [hereinafter Gonzalez de Langarica] un view of Bouthemy; Jean-Luc R , U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120166652[hereinafter Bouthemy]
As per claims 1, and 8, Gonzalez de Langarica discloses method performed by a first wireless communication device for Internet Protocol, IP, Multimedia Subsystem, IMS, sessions between the first wireless communication device and two or more other wireless communication , devices, the method comprising:
establishing a first IMS session with a second wireless communication device (Fig. 3 and 5, par. 0048 "a user is engaged in a single call, which may also be referred to as a first call session [..] The call may be a call between a first UE 120 of the user and a second UE 121 of a first call participant"); and
while the first IMS session is ongoing and without placing the first IMS session on hold, establishing a second IMS session with a third wireless communication device (Fig. 3, par. 0052-0054, where he second network node 151 obtains input from the user indicating that the user wishes to add a participant to the ongoing call. The user input may e.g. be obtained by voice command from the user which may be provided to a UE connected to the second network node 151", i.e. while the first session is not put on hold another session.
though, Gonzalez de Langarica discloses while the first IMS session is ongoing and without placing the first IMS session on hold( that can interpreted as simultaneous IMS voice sessions).
In the event Gonzalez de Langarica does not clearly discloses simultaneous IM session.
Bouthemy; Jean-Luc R discloses a system simultaneous or parallel SIP session is established to ring respective ones of the multiple devices( first IMS session and the second IMS) (see par.0024, 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bouthemy into the system of Gonzalez de Langarica thus providing improving simultaneous and sequential SIP forking for multiple IMS subscribers by establishing multiple SIP session dialogs from a single SIP request in the IMS domain. In contrast to conventional parallel and sequential SIP forking (collectively "SIP forking"). For example, In contrast to conventional parallel and sequential SIP forking (collectively "SIP forking") techniques that require all subscriber devices to share a same IMPU to participate, for example, in simultaneous and sequential SIP session establishment, the systems and methods described herein provide SIP forking to any public identities, including parties that do not share a same IMPU (regardless of where they are registered and as assigned to resources) without contribution from the recipients or the originator.
As per claim 2, Bouthemy the method of claim 1 wherein the first IMS session and the second IMS sessions are simultaneous IMS voice sessions(see par. 0060).
As per claim 3, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first IMS session is an IMS voice session, an IMS data session, or an IMS video session, and the second IMS session an IMS voice session, an IMS data session, or an IMS video session, and the first IMS session and the second IMS session are simultaneous IMS sessions(see par. 0005).
As per claim 4, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first IMS session is an IMS session that supports a combination of two or more of voice, video, and data, and/or the second IMS session an IMS session that supports a combination of two or more of voice, video, and data(see par. 0005).
As per claim 5, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the simultaneous IMS sessions are permitted only if an associated P-CSCF does not have any policy that prohibits resource reservation for any media for simultaneous IMS sessions initiated or received by the same UE(see par. 0017).
As per claim 20 and 31 Gonzalez de Langarica discloses method performed by network node to enable a feature for supporting simultaneous Internet Protocol, IP, Multimedia Subsystem, IMS, sessions between a first wireless communication device and two or more other wireless communication devices(see figs. 4-5), the method comprising:
obtaining information that indicates that a first wireless communication device is associated to a subscription to a simultaneous IMS sessions feature(Fig. 3 and 5, par. 0048-0049 "a user is engaged in a single call, which may also be referred to as a first call session [..] The call may be a call between a first UE 120 of the user and a second UE 121 of a first call participant");
storing the information(802ontaininunit for storing) while the first wireless communication device has a first IMS session that is ongoing with a second wireless communication device: establishing a second IMS session with a third wireless communication device (Fig. 3, par. 0052-0054, where he second network node 151 obtains input from the user indicating that the user wishes to add a participant to the ongoing call. The user input may e.g. be obtained by voice command from the user which may be provided to a UE connected to the second network node 151", i.e. while the first session is not put on hold another session);
receiving a request for establishment of a second IMS session between a second wireless communication device and the first wireless communication device, the second IMS session being simultaneous with the first IMS session(see the abstract and pars. 0054-0055); determining that the second IMS session is allowed based on the stored information; and allowing establishment of the second IMS session to continue responsive to determining that the second IMS session is allowed(see pars. 0056-0058).
though, Gonzalez de Langarica discloses while the first IMS session is ongoing and without placing the first IMS session on hold( that can interpreted as simultaneous IMS voice sessions).
In the event Gonzalez de Langarica does not clearly disclose simultaneous IM session.
Bouthemy; Jean-Luc R discloses a system simultaneous or parallel SIP session is established to ring respective ones of the multiple devices( first IMS session and the second IMS) (see par.0024, 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bouthemy into the system of Gonzalez de Langarica thus providing improving simultaneous and sequential SIP forking for multiple IMS subscribers by establishing multiple SIP session dialogs from a single SIP request in the IMS domain. In contrast to conventional parallel and sequential SIP forking (collectively "SIP forking"). For example, In contrast to conventional parallel and sequential SIP forking (collectively "SIP forking") techniques that require all subscriber devices to share a same IMPU to participate, for example, in simultaneous and sequential SIP session establishment, the systems and methods described herein provide SIP forking to any public identities, including parties that do not share a same IMPU (regardless of where they are registered and as assigned to resources) without contribution from the recipients or the originator.
As per claim 21, Bouthemy discloses The method of claim 20 wherein obtaining the information comprises receiving a subscription profile associated to the first wireless communication device from a Home Subscriber Server, HSS, , the subscription profile comprising the information that indicates that the first wireless communication device is associated to a subscription to the simultaneous IMS sessions feature(see par. 0024, 0030).
As per claim 22, Gonzalez de Langarica discloses the method of claim 20 wherein the network node is an IMS node (see par. 0044).
As per claim 23, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 22 wherein the IMS node is a Serving Call Session Control Function, S-CSCF (see par. 0028).
As per claim 24, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 20 wherein the network node is a network node that hosts a MMTEL service(see par. 0028).
As per claim 25, Bouthemy discloses The method of claim 20 wherein the first IMS session and the second IMS sessions are simultaneous IMS voice sessions (see par. 0060).
As per claim 26, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 20 wherein the first IMS session is an IMS voice session, an IMS data session, or an IMS video session, and the second IMS session an IMS voice session, an IMS data session, or an IMS video session, and the first IMS session and the second IMS session are simultaneous IMS sessions (see par. 0005).
As per claim 27 Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 20 wherein the first IMS session is an IMS session that supports a combination of two or more of voice, video, and data, and/or the second IMS session an IMS session that supports a combination of two or more of voice, video, and data(see par. 0005).
As per claim 28, Bouthemy discloses the method of claim 20 wherein the simultaneous IMS sessions are permitted only if an associated P-CSCF does not have any policy that prohibits resource reservation for any media for simultaneous IMS sessions initiated or received by the same UE(see par. 0017).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4009. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6: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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABDULLAHI E SALAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466