DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-17 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “control plane” in claims 1, 11 is used by the claim to mean “a communication means/method for user devices,” while the accepted meaning is “a means or method for a network controller, like a router, to establish network topology and define how packets are forwarded through the network.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The term “control plane” is a term of art that is described as “a logically centralized control frame work that runs the NOS (network operating system), maintains global view of the network, and provides hardware abstractions to SDN applications.” [“Security in Software Defined Networks: A Survey”, Ahmad et al., IEEE Communication Surveys & Tutorials, Vol.17, No.4, Fourth Quarter 2015].
Note: for the art rejections below, the claim limitation is interpreted to represent “control plane location-based user device (CP UD)” based on the originally filed disclosure that provides a description of what makes a device a “control plane location-based user device” as an example, as presented in [0016] as Apple iPhone.
Claims 2, 5-12, 15-17 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-12, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Annamalai et al. [US 20110269477] in view of Piett et al. [US 20160337831].
As to claim 1. Annamalai discloses A method for facilitating inter-network handover of a communication with a call center, the method being implemented by at least one electronic processor configured to execute computer programs, [0066], wherein the method comprises:
receiving, at a first network via a user plane, [0019], and from a second network, information indicating a location of a location-based user device (CP UD), [fig. 7B, 0097] home network receives location data from a visited network;
detecting, at the first network, presence or absence of an active connection between the user device and the first network, [fig. 6, 0085, 0086] determines if the emergency call is still active, then continues to determine the location when the access network changes 675, 620;
obtaining, at the first network, the location of the CP UD from the received information, [fig. 6, 7B, 0087] during location determination process, if the mobile device moves to a visited network outside the home network, method of fig. 7B is implemented after step 675, in response to the presence of the active connection, [fig. 6, 0085, 0086] determines if the emergency call is still active, then continues to determine the location when the access network changes 675, 620; and
transmitting the information indicating the location to a location database in communication to the call center, [0095].
Annamalai fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user device is a control plane location-based user device; and wherein the information indicating the location included in a SIP header, the SIP header generated by the CP UD.
Piett teaches a 911 caller location data determination method and system wherein the system uses a session initiation protocol SIP and its header as the signaling protocol, [0063]; wherein the caller’s location is provided in the form of a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), that is appended in the header of the SIP message, [0063]; wherein the URI is generated and added to the URI by the calling device 102, [0064]; wherein the calling device can be an Apple iPhone, [0037].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Annamalai with that of Piett so that the system so that the system can implement internet telephony and allow the user to connect to emergency services when traditional call services are not available.
As to claim 2. Annamalai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the information is received after an emergency call is initiated from the CP UD, [0028, 0085].
As to claim 5. Annamalai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the information is received at the first network after the CP UD moves from the first network to the second network during the active connection with the call center, [0087, 0088].
As to claim 6. Annamalai fails to disclose The method of claim 1, further comprising the following limitations. However, Piett teaches:
obtaining, at the first network, last-known location of the CP UD, [0072]; and
comparing, at the first network, the location of the CP UD received from the second network with the last-known location of the CP UD, [0072],
wherein the transmission of the location of the CP UD to the call center is performed after an outcome of the comparison indicates a difference between the location of the CP UD and the last-known location of the CP UD, [0075].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Annamalai with that of Piett so that the system can use the last known location of the device until the new location is determined as an approximate location of the user.
As to claim 7. Annamalai fails to disclose The method of claim 6, further comprising: saving the CP UD location received from the second network as the last-known CP UD location.
Piett teaches a 911 caller location data determination method and system wherein the system uses a session initiation protocol SIP and its header as the signaling protocol, [0063]; wherein the system updates the new location of the user and saves the location in a database, [0072].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Annamalai with that of Piett so that the system can use the last known location of the device until the new location is determined as an approximate location of the user.
As to claim 8. Annamalai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the information is received at the first network in a user plane, [0019].
As to claim 9. Annamalai discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the information is received through a user plane connection between a first user plane function of the first network and a second user plane function of the second network, [0019, 0038] wherein the user devices and the home network implement a SUPL standards.
As to claim 10. Annamalai discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the information is received from the second network periodically, [0081].
As to claim 11 is rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claim 1.
As to claims 12, 15-17 are rejected using the same prior arts and reasoning as to that of claims 2, 5-7, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Annamalai fails to teach or suggest routing a control plane location data over a user plane to maintain continuity for a CP location-based user device during inter-network handover.
Response 1: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a control plane location data”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only claim “receiving … information indicating a location of a … user device”; wherein the user device is claimed to be “a control plane location-based”. There is no “control plane location data” claimed.
Argument 2: Annamalai fails to teach or suggest routing a control plane location data over a user plane to maintain continuity for a CP location-based user device during inter-network handover.
Response 2: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “routing”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only claim “receiving … information indicating a location of a … user device”. There is no “routing” claimed.
Argument 3: Annamalai fails to teach or suggest routing a control plane location data over a user plane to maintain continuity for a CP location-based user device during inter-network handover.
Response 3: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “to maintain continuity for a CP location-based user device during inter-network handover”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only claim “receiving … information indicating a location of a … user device”; wherein the user device is claimed to be “a control plane location-based”. There is no limitation claiming the function for the “receiving”, or using “a user plane” or the information indicating a location of a … user device to be “to maintain continuity for a CP location-based user device during inter-network handover” claimed.
Argument 4: Annamalai does not address the specific loss of a control plane connectivity for CP-based devices by utilizing user plane signaling.
Response 4: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “address the specific loss of a control plane connectivity for CP-based devices by utilizing user plane signaling”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims only claim “receiving … information indicating a location of a … user device”; wherein the user device is claimed to be “a control plane location-based”. There is no limitation claiming the function for the “addressing the specific loss of a control plane connectivity for CP-based devices by utilizing user plane signaling” claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights