DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 9,485,548 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent. For example, claim 1 includes most of the limitations of the previously patent claim 1, except “…wherein the origination information comprises information about the origin and wherein a first value of the header field indicates that the call session is to be routed based on the origination information and a second value of the same header field indicates that the call session is to be routed based on destination information of the call session request”. Therefore, the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since all features are obvious variation of the patented claims.
Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-17 of U. S. Patent No. 10,368,145 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent. For example, claim 1 includes most of the limitations of the previously patent claim 1, except “…a second computing device configured to cause a search of the database and to provide the response to the request, based at least in part on a result of the search, to the first computing device”. Therefore, the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since all features are obvious variation of the patented claims.
Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claims 1-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-18 of U. S. Patent No. 11,736,837 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent. For example, claim 1 includes most of the limitations of the previously patent claim 1, except “…wherein the selecting comprises selecting between: the origination information of the call session request; and
destination information of the call session request”. Therefore, the claims of the instant application would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since all features are obvious variation of the patented claims.
Omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-10, 12-14, 18, 20-22, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Amos et al. (US Patent 8,437,457).
Regarding claim 1, Amos discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a computing device, a call session request for a call session from an origin to a destination (see col. 4, lines 7-17; col. 8, line 22-36); determining, based on origination information of the call session request, a database, wherein the database maps a plurality of origins, comprising an origin of the call session, with a plurality of intermediate destinations (col. 13, line 40 – col. 14; and fig. 2, 6 – outbound trunks T01, T02, T03 are the intermediate destination to the ultimate destination; col. 3, lines 60 – col. 4, line 6; col. 5, lines 21-50); determining, using the database and the origination information, an intermediate destination of the plurality of intermediate destinations(see col. 8, line 53-60; fig. 7E; col. 17, line 63-col. 8, line 17); and causing the call session to be routed toward the intermediate destination (see col. 4, lines 7-17; col. 8, lines 53-60).
Regarding claim 3, Amos discloses wherein the intermediate destination is connected to a communication trunk of a network, and wherein the communication trunk corresponds to the origination information (see fig. 6; col. 13, lines 41-67).
Regarding claim 4, Amos discloses wherein the call session request comprises an indication of a routing type, and wherein the determining the database comprises determining the database further based on the indication of the routing type (see col. 4, line 53-65; also see fig. 7c and col. 17, line 23-51 – such as external call).
Regarding claim 5, Amos discloses wherein the origination information comprises an indication of a rate center of an origin corresponding to the origination information (see fig. 6; col. 8, lines 10-21; col. 14 – see pseudo code for ANI 3XXX for City2Proxy users).
Regarding claim 9, Amos discloses wherein the call session request comprises the origination information and destination information, the method further comprising: determining, based on the destination information, a second intermediate destination (see col. 5, lines 40-51; see fig. 7E, 508, 510, 512; fig. 6 – for example a city 2 user passing the origination filter may be routed to T04 for local calls or T02 for long distance calls); and causing the call session to be further routed toward the second intermediate destination (see col. 8, lines 61-67).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, see rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, see rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claims 13 and 21, see rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claims 14 and 22, see rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 26, see rejection of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 11 and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos et al. (US Patent 8,437,457) in view of McLarty et al. (US Pub 2007/0041550).
Regarding claim 2, Amos discloses the method of claim 1.
Amos does not disclose wherein the call session request comprises a header, the origination information, and destination information, the method further comprising selecting, based on the header and for routing of the call session, between the origination information and the destination information.
McLarty discloses wherein the call session request comprises a header, the origination information, and destination information, the method further comprising selecting, based on the header and for routing of the call session, between the origination information and the destination information (para 0033 and 0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amos with the teachings of McLarty in order to determine where call should be routed based on header information (McLarty, para 0033).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, see rejection of claim 2.
Claims 6-7, 15-16, and 23-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Amos et al. (US Patent 8,437,457) in view of Soncodi et al. (US Patent 6,977,933).
Regarding claim 6, Amos discloses the method of claim 1.
Amos does not disclose wherein the call session request comprises a session initiation protocol (SIP) request that comprises a trunk group header field, the method further comprising determining the origination information based on the trunk group header field.
Soncodi discloses wherein the call session request comprises a session initiation protocol (SIP) request that comprises a trunk group header field, the method further comprising determining the origination information based on the trunk group header field (col. 3, lines 19-col. 4, line 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amos with the teachings of Soncodi in order to better deterministically and directly route calls.
Regarding claims 15 and 23, see rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Amos discloses the method of claim 1.
Amos does not disclose wherein the call session request comprises an indication associated with origination-based routing.
Soncodi discloses wherein the call session request comprises an indication associated with origination-based routing (see col. 5 and 6 the various tables 310, 314, 324 etc; see example, col. 5, lines 45-67 – priority calls such as 911).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amos with the teachings of Soncodi in order to use origin based routing to correctly route to appropriate PSAP.
Regarding claims 16 and 24, see rejection of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17, and 25 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAFIZ E HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on (571)272-7488. 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.
/NAFIZ E HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2652