DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicants amendment filed 12/01/2025 which has been entered. Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15 and 20 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with Claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzelac (2017/0346784 A1) in view of Periyannan et al (2014/0267569 A1).
As per Claim 1, Uzelac teaches a method, comprising: determining whether a session initiation request, received at an on-premises telephony node, is associated with audio or video communication with an external station; determining a session type for a session based on whether the session initiation request is associated with the audio or video communication with the external station, the session type comprising at least one of a public switched telephone network (PSTN) session or a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) session; and causing initiation of the session based on the determination of the session type (Page 3, Paragraph [0023]; Page 4, Paragraph [0029]; Page 6, Paragraph [0037]).
(Note: In paragraph [0023], Uzelac describes a database that is used to determine a received communication type [e.g. audio communication or video communication] and based on the type of communication a specific communication address is returned and the communication is then routed. In paragraph [0029], Uzelac describes a communication network receiving an identifier or request for information that includes a particular communication type that is being transmitted [e.g. video conference or audio communication])
(Note: In paragraph [0037], Uzelac describes a database analyzing a session initiation protocol [SIP] request to determine communication type. Uzelac indicates that a session border controller [SBC] may or may not be capable of processing all communication types; and further indicates that the database retrieves specific SIP uniform resource indicators [URIs] based on the processing capabilities of a specific SBC)
Uzelac does not teach wherein the external station is not an on-premises station residing on one of multiple premises associated with an entity hosting the on-premises telephony node. However, Periyannan teaches wherein the external station is not an on-premises station residing on one of multiple premises associated with an entity hosting the on-premises telephony node (Page 1, Paragraph [0013] – Page 2, Paragraphs [0015] and [0017]; Page 9, Paragraphs [0083] and [0086]; Page 10, Paragraph [0092]).
(Note: In paragraph [0013], Periyannan describes a micro point of presence [POP] that is part of an enterprise network [i.e. an entity hosting an on-premises telephony node] capable of providing video conferencing services. Periyannan indicates the enterprise may be an organization, a corporation, a company, a customer, a user, a population of a city or a country, etc. In paragraph [0015], indicates the micro-POP may be tied to a Core media POP to form a globally distributed infrastructure to enable the provisioning of services throughout the world)
(Note: In paragraph [0017], Periyannan describes a process called chaining as handling media processing on a multiparty video conferencing using one or more micro-POPs for endpoints internal to devices associated with an enterprise network and media processing for endpoints external to the enterprise network [i.e. an external station not being an on-premises station residing on one of multiple premises associated with an entity hosting the on-premises telephony node]. In paragraph [0083], Periyannan also describes a plurality of endpoints associated with an enterprise network which may be in communication with external stations outside the enterprise network and unassociated with the enterprise)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Uzelac with the method taught by Periyannan to enable conferencing participants to join from anywhere they are located which significantly reduces travel, lodging and logistical expenses while eliminating commuting time resulting in faster decision making and enhanced productivity.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Uzelac and Periyannan teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Uzelac also teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions (Page 6, Paragraphs [0042] and [0043]); and a processor (Figure 5 – References 502, 504 and 506; Page 6, Paragraphs [0039] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Uzelac with the method and non-transitory computer readable medium taught by Periyannan to enable conferencing participants to join from anywhere they are located which significantly reduces travel, lodging and logistical expenses while eliminating commuting time resulting in faster decision making and enhanced productivity.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Uzelac and Periyannan teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Uzelac also teaches a system, comprising: a memory subsystem (Figure 5 – Reference 516; Page 6, Paragraphs [0041] and [0042]); and processing circuitry (Figure 5 – References 502, 504 and 506; Page 6, Paragraphs [0039] and [0042])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system taught by Uzelac with the method and system taught by Periyannan to enable conferencing participants to join from anywhere they are located which significantly reduces travel, lodging and logistical expenses while eliminating commuting time resulting in faster decision making and enhanced productivity.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzelac (2017/0346784 A1) in view of Periyannan et al (2014/0267569 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Pearce (2014/0157338 A1).
As per Claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Uzelac and Periyannan teaches the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system of Claims 1, 8 and 15; but does not teach responsive to the session initiation request being associated with the audio or video communication with the external station, transmitting, to an on-premises session border controller coupled with the on-premises telephony node, a signal to initiate the PSTN session with the external station for the audio communication.
However, Pearce teaches responsive to the session initiation request being associated with the audio or video communication with the external station, transmitting, to an on-premises session border controller coupled with the on-premises telephony node, a signal to initiate the PSTN session with the external station for the audio communication (Figure 1 – Reference 104; Page 1, Paragraphs [0013] and [0014]; Page 2, Paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Uzelac and Periyannan with the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Pearce to ensure telecom providers are in compliance with legal requirements and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations utilize legacy networks that guarantee the continued availability of essential public services.
As per Claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Uzelac, Periyannan and Pearce teaches responsive to the session initiation request not being associated with the audio or video communication with the external station, initiating, by the on-premises telephony node, the VoIP session corresponding to the session initiation request. (Note: An external participant is shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Pearce [Reference 124]. As described above in Claim 1, Uzelac describes the establishment of a VoIP session in response to a session initiation request)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Uzelac and Periyannan with the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Pearce to ensure telecom providers are in compliance with legal requirements and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations utilize legacy networks that guarantee the continued availability of essential public services.
As per Claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Uzelac, Periyannan and Pearce teaches responsive to the session initiation request being associated with the video communication with the external station: using the PSTN session with the external station to process audio of the video communication; and causing transmission of imagery to or from the external station via a network different from that of the PSTN session as described in Claim 2.
(Note: In paragraph [0014], Pearce describes routing audio through the PSTN and not utilizing VoIP connections. In paragraph [0027], Pearce describes the shunting of audio and video. In paragraph [0037], Uzelac indicates that SBC may not support all communication types and that some may support video communications [i.e. imagery] while others may lack these capabilities)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Uzelac and Periyannan with the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Pearce to ensure telecom providers are in compliance with legal requirements and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations utilize legacy networks that guarantee the continued availability of essential public services.
As per Claims 6, 7 and 20, the combination of Uzelac, Periyannan and Pearce teaches wherein the one or multiple premises comprise multiple premises; and wherein one or multiple premises comprise a single premise. (Note: The claims recite that one or more premises are associated with an entity hosting the on-premises telephony node)
(Note: As described above in Claim 1, the entity [i.e. enterprise] may be any of an organization, a corporation, a company, a customer, a user, a population of a city or a country, etc. In the event that the enterprise may be an organization it would be obvious for the one or multiple premises comprise multiple premises. In the event that the enterprise may be a customer or a user it would be obvious for the one or multiple premises comprise a single premises)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Uzelac and Periyannan with the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Pearce to ensure telecom providers are in compliance with legal requirements and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations utilize legacy networks that guarantee the continued availability of essential public services.
As per Claims 13 and 14, the combination of Uzelac, Periyannan and Pearce teaches wherein the external station is not connected to a network of the one of the one or multiple premises associated with the entity hosting the on-premises telephony node; and wherein the one or more multiple premises comprise a single premises, wherein the external station is not connected to a network of the single premise as described in Claims 6, 7 and 20.
(Note: In paragraphs [0018], [0019] and [0043], Periyannan describes an enterprise making use of firewalls to secure enterprise networks as a security layer to keep out unwanted intruders. The use of a firewall to prevent external devices to connect to the enterprise network is taught and as such the recitations of the claim language are met by the combination of applied prior art)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Uzelac and Periyannan with the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Pearce to ensure telecom providers are in compliance with legal requirements and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations utilize legacy networks that guarantee the continued availability of essential public services.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uzelac (2017/0346784 A1) in view of Periyannan et al (2014/0267569 A1) as applied to Claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of ZEHAVI et al (2016/0191573 A1).
As per Claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Uzelac and Periyannan teaches the method of Claims 1, 8 and 15; but does not teach storing, at an on-premises data repository coupled with an on- method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system premises session border controller, a call detail record generated by the on-premises session border controller, the call detail record comprising representations of sessions having the session type of the PSTN session.
However, Zehavi teaches storing, at an on-premises data repository coupled with an on-premises session border controller, a call detail record generated by the on-premises session border controller, the call detail record comprising representations of sessions having the session type of the PSTN session (Figure 5 – Reference 512; Page 5, Paragraph [0056]; Page 7, Paragraphs [0073] and [0074]).
(Note: In paragraph [0056], Zehavi describes an outbound proxy server that includes a call detail record [CDR] generation unit responsible for producing call detail records. In paragraphs [0073] and [0074], Zehavi describes the function of an outbound proxy server and the role it plays in the establishing and recording of communications. Additionally, Zehavi indicates these functions may be performed by a Session Border Controller)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Uzelac and Periyannan with the method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system taught by Zehavi to utilize the current state of a connection medium in conjunction with communication metadata to rapidly update session status information in an effort to provide accurate and far more reliable billing information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Srinath et al (2020/0351265 A1), Richards et al (2017/0295208 A1), MEGHANI et al (2014/0269674 A1), Elad et al (2017/0195391 A1), Rao et al (9,736,194 B1), HODGE et al (2017/0331960 A1) and John Chuan et al (10,326,886 B1). Each of these describes systems and methods of implementing communication withing hybrid packet/circuit switched environments.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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 at 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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693