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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,3-5,11,15,17-19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Svend et al. (GB 2408422 A) (IDS).
The claimed invention reads on Svend et al. as follows:
Regarding claim 1, Svend et al. discloses a method (fig. 3) performed by a first network node serving (base station)( abstract) or (call processing server) (fig. 2 number 106) a first terminal (first mobile)(abstract) or (fig. 2 number 202) when handling a call between the first terminal (first mobile) (abstract) or (first communication unit) (fig. 2 number 202) and a second terminal (second mobile)(abstract) or (second communication unit) (fig. 2 number 208 and page 6 lines 4-18), the method comprising: determining that the call is associated with longer than expected delays (i.e. the delay would normally be twice the difference in delay link times) between the first mobile/terminal and second mobile/terminal terminals (abstract, page 4 lines 30-35 and page 5 lines 1-3), and providing (communicating and/or notifying) a Long Delay Indication to at least one of said first and second mobiles/terminals to indicate said longer than expected delays in the call (abstract, page 4 lines 30-35 and page 5 lines 1-3 and page 8 lines 24-33).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Svend et al. discloses receiving information of a longer than expected delay from any of or both the first terminal and the second terminal (i.e. When two communication units 202 and 208 are trying to establish a communication link, wherein a first communication unit 202 operates on a long delay link 204 and a second communication unit 208 operates on a short delay link 206, then to avoid a risk of losing first audio data packets, transmission 118 of audio data blocks is delayed 302 on the short delay link’s site. In operation a first Base Station (BS) 102 and a second BS 108 and a Call Processing Server (CPS) 106 are going through an initial call set-up phase 110 (page 6 lines 7-18).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Svend et al. discloses determining whether or not the at least one of said first and second terminals is capable of interpreting a first Long Delay Indication (i.e. The network infrastructure informs the communication units 202 and 208 that they operate on long propagation time connection and in turn the communication units informs (explains to and/or interpreting) their users in form of visual or audio signal (page 8 lines 24-34).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Svend et al. discloses the first Long Delay Indication is an indication provided at a session establishment (beginning) of said call (page 5 lines 1- 3).
Regarding claim 11, Svend et al. discloses method (fig. 3) performed by a first terminal/mobile when handling a call between the first terminal/mobile (first communication unit) (abstract and fig. 2 number 202) and a second terminal/mobile (second communication unit) (abstract, fig. 2 number 208 and page 6 lines 4-18), the method comprising: receiving a Long Delay Indication indicating longer than expected delays (i.e. The delay would normally be twice the difference in delay link times) between the first and second terminals (abstract and page 4 lines 30-35 and page 5 lines 1-3), and adapting the first terminal to said longer than expected delays (i.e. long propagation time) based on the Long Delay Indication (page 8 lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 15, Svend et al. discloses first network node (base station)(abstract and fig. 2 number 102) configured to serve a first terminal/mobile (first communication unit) (fig. 2 number 202) and to handle a call between first terminal/mobile (first communication unit) (abstract and fig. 2 number 202) and a second terminal/mobile (second communication unit) (abstract and fig. 2 number 208 and page 6 lines 4-18), the first network node further being configured to: determine that the call is associated with longer than expected delays (i.e. The delay would normally be twice the difference in delay link times) between the first and second terminals (abstract and page 4 lines 30-35 and page 5 lines 1-3 and page 8 lines 24-31 ) , and provide (communicating and/or notifying) a Long Delay Indication to at least one of said first and second terminals to indicate said longer than expected delays in the call (abstract and fig. 2, page 4 lines 30-35, page 5 lines 1-3 and page 8 lines 24-31).
Regarding claim 23, Svend et al. discloses a first terminal/mobile (first communication unit) (abstract and fig. 2 number 202) configured to handle a call between the first terminal/mobile (first communication unit) (abstract and fig. 2 number 202) and a second terminal/mobile (second communication unit) (abstract and fig. 2 number 208 and page 6 lines 4-18), the first terminal further being configured: receive a Long Delay Indication indicating longer than expected delays (i.e. The delay would normally be twice the difference in delay link times) between the first and second terminals (abstract and page 4 lines 30-35 and page 5 lines 1-3 and page 8 lines 24-31 ), and adapt the first terminal to said longer than expected delays based on the Long Delay Indication (fig. 2, page 4 lines 30-35, page 5 lines 1-3 and page 8 lines 24-31).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svend et al. (GB 2408422 A) (IDS) in view of Xu et al. (US 2014/0169286).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Svend et al. discloses a method/ network node as discussed supra in claim 1 and 15 above. Svend et al. further discloses one or both of the first terminal and the second terminal are roaming in a respective visited network wherein said longer than expected delays are caused by communication between the visited network and a respective home network. (When one of said communication units 202 or 208 changes its geographical location it can happen that it also Switches to another Base Station. In such situation the propagation time of the link on which the new Base Station operates may differ from the previous one) (page 8 lines 12-18). Svend et al. differs from claims 2 and 16 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose a terminal roaming in a visited network and a home network. Xu et al. teaches a UE roaming to a visited network from a home network (P:0018). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Xu et al. with a terminal roaming in a visited network and a home network in order for the network node to notify the terminals of a delay that may be longer than an expected delay when sending services and/or internet services from the home network to the visiting network due to the quality of link performance for completing the call, as taught by Xu et al..
8. Claim(s) 7 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svend et al. (GB 2408422 A) (IDS) in view of Walton (UA 89611 C2).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, Svend et al. discloses a method/network node as discussed in claims 1 and 15 above. Svend et al. differs from claims 7 and 21 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose adapting to said longer than expected delays based on the Long Delay Indication. Walton teaches User terminals can be all-in-one in the system and thus can be associated with different delay delays to the access point. In order to maximize the efficiency in the east-line, synchronize the uplink transmission over the channels of the RSN and the SPCs from each user terminal can be adjusted to keep track of the prolonged delay (page 79, 4th paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu et al. of adapting to said longer than expected delays based on the Long Delay Indication in order for the communication units to determine how to adapt to the long delay notification sent by the network about their phone call, as taught by Walton.
9. Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svend et al. (GB 2408422 A) (IDS) in view of Durvasula et al. (US 2019/0207747).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, Svend et al. discloses a method/network node as discussed in claims 1 and 15 above. Svend et al. differs from claims 8 and 22 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose the first network node is part of or accessible by an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem, IMS. Durvasula et al. teaches a eNodeB (fig. 2 number 250) is part of or accessible by an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (fig. 2 number 260 and P:0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first network node is part of or accessible by an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem, IMS in order for the call processing server to provide multimedia services over IP networks to the terminals, as taught by Durvasula et al..
10. Claim(s) 12 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svend et al. (GB 2408422 A) (IDS)in view of Guan (US 2009/0164656).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Svend et al. discloses a first terminal (first communication unit) (fig. 2 number 202) as discussed supra in claims 11 and 23 above. Svend et al. differs from claims 12 and 24 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose playing a media content. Guan teaches the user node receiving media stream data of the program content from the best node; and playing the media stream data (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Svend et al. with playing a media content in order for the first communication device to know how long and the best nodes to provide the media will take before it could play media from the network, as taught by Guan.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 6 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 6 and 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone, or in combination
the second Long Delay Indication is a media content provided to the at least one of said first and second terminals.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive. The following are explanations to the applicant arguments:
Argument: Applicant alleges that In Svend, the delays that are measured or compensated for are delays of the individual communication links between each UE and the common router (e.g., link 204 between the first UE 202 and the router 104, or link 206 between the second UE 208 and the router 104), but not the delays between the first UE 202 and the second UE 208. In contrast, claim 1 specifically requires the claimed "longer than expected delays" between the first terminal and the second terminals.
Explanation: Examiner respectfully disagrees, because claim 1, claims - determining that the call is associated with longer than expected delays between the first and second terminals, and
- providing a Long Delay Indication to at least one of said first and second terminals to indicate said longer than expected delays in the call. Svend teaches a call setup between a first communication device and a second communication device where large link delays are encountered (abstract), the delay would normally be twice the difference in delay link times (i.e. longer than expected delays) and can be communicated (i.e. providing and/or notifying a long than expected delay) by the network to the terminals. The delay can be pre-known or measured when needed (abstract).
2. Argument: Regarding claim 4, applicant alleges that the Svend and Cui do not disclose determining whether or not the at least one of said first and second terminals is capable of interpreting a first Long Delay Indication
Explanation: Examiner agrees with applicant, see new rejection above.
Conclusion
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 KEITH FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am -3 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, Wesley L Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/KEITH FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648