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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 recites "One or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions" which may encompass both signals per se and software per se.
Upon checking the specification, paragraph [012] discloses that
"Communications media typically store computer-useable instructions including data structures and program modules in a modulated data signal.
The term "modulated data signal" refers to a propagated signal that has one or more of its characteristics set or changed to encode information in the signal. Communications media include any information-delivery media. By way of example but not
limitation, communications media include wired media, such as a wired network or direct-wired
connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, infrared, radio, microwave, spread-spectrum, and other wireless media technologies. Combinations of the above are included within the scope of computer-readable media". See also paragraph 023 in the disclosure. Claims 18-20 depend on claim 17. Appropriate action is required.
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)(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, 3, 8, 12, 13, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. No. 9,060,366 by Lau et al, hereinafter Lau.
Regarding claims: 1, 12, and 17, Lau discloses:
a method for mitigating disruptions to a telecommunications network (Figure 4; col. 6, lines 4-18) comprising:
a computerized system (Figure 4; col. 6, lines 4-18) comprising: one or more processors (col. 4, lines 25-35; col. 6, lines 19-23); and a non-transitory computer storage media (Figure 4, 270; i.e. CSCF server) storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (col. 4, lines 25-35; col. 6, lines 19-23):
one or more computer storage media storing computer-usable instructions that, when used by a computing device (Figure 4, 270; i.e. CSCF server), cause the computing device to perform operations, the operations comprising (col. 4, lines 25-35; col. 6, lines 19-23):
determining a setup time (i.e. ‘cycle time’ or ‘a setup request-to-alert cycle time’ in the prior art of Lau reads on the claimed: ‘the amount of time that elapses between a UE’s request to initiate a call and the receipt of an indication that the call recipient’s device has received the request’; col. 7, lines 48-54) for a first call between a first user equipment (UE) (Figure 4, 210-1; i.e. user device) and a second UE (Figure 4, 210-2; i.e. user device) (col. 6, lines 19-24) by determining a difference between:
a first time at which a first call initiating indication (i.e. call setup request; Figure, 4, 410) for the first call was received from the first UE at a first radio access network (RAN) node of the network (i.e. one or more base stations; Figure 4, 220) (col. 6, lines 19-24; col. 6, line 61 - col. 7, line 36),
and
a second time at which a call delivery indication (i.e. provisional response; Figure. 4, 425) for the first call was transmitted from a second RAN node of the network (i.e. one or more base stations; Figure 4, 220) to the first UE (col. 6, lines 19-24),
wherein the call delivery indication indicates that the second UE has received a request to join the first call (col. 7, lines 37-58);
determining that the setup time for the first call is above a threshold (i.e. timeout period) (col. 6, line 61 – col. 7, line 12); and
based on the determining that the setup time for the first call is above the threshold, performing a corrective action (i.e. transmission of keep-alive messages) (col. 6, line 61 – col. 7, line 12).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Lau discloses wherein the performing the correction action comprises communicating an alert and displaying an indication of the alert at a user interface (i.e. SIP 180 message), and wherein the indication of the alert comprises information regarding the setup time for the first call (col. 7, lines 37-58).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Lau discloses wherein the performing the corrective action comprises identifying a malfunctioning component of the network (i.e. to refresh a connection between base station and user device; col. 6, line 61 – col. 7, line 25).
Regarding claim 8, Lau discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is at least three seconds (col. 6, line 61 – col. 7, line 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, and 16 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.
Claims 18, 19, and 20 if applicant amends to overcome the 101 rejection, then the claims 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LISA HASHEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692