DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to an Application No. 18/364,097 filed on 08/02/2023. Claims 13-18 have been withdrawn via a restriction requirement. Claims 1-12, 19, and 20 are subject to examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “…the search classification numbers of Group I and Group II are similar, and therefore no additional search burden is placed on the examiner. Based on the foregoing, withdrawal of the Restriction Requirement is respectfully requested.”. This is not found persuasive because while certain CPC classifications may overlap between Group I and Group II, overlap in classification alone does not negate a serious search burden. The elected groups are directed to distinct inventions that require different search strategies, queries, and bodies of prior art to address different features and limitations. Conducting separate searches and analyses for each distinct invention would therefore impose an additional and undue burden on the Office. See MPEP §§ 803 and 808.02 (distinctness and serious search burden notwithstanding overlapping classifications).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Christopher et al. (Christopher hereafter) (US 2020/0153874 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Christopher teaches, a computer-implemented method comprising:
initiating a voice call, wherein the voice call comprises a voice session over 5G new radio (NR) initiated via a user equipment (UE); (Christopher; 61 of Fig. 6; SIP Invite arrives at S-CSCF 152; CD 120 over 130 of Fig. 1; where 130 of Fig. 1 is a 5G network, Par. 0026)
in response to a failure of a first connection to an initial Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) server (Christopher; In Service? 65 of Fig. 6, Alternative? 66 of Fig. 6, & Add Restoration Indication and Send to Alternate P-CSCF 67 of Fig. 6), selecting a secondary P-CSCF server (Christopher; Add Restoration Indication and Send to Alternate P-CSCF 67 of Fig. 6) from a plurality of P- CSCF servers (Christopher; A plurality of P-CSCF servers may be provisioned in the IMS Core 110, Par. 0027), wherein each of the plurality of P-CSCF servers are available to connect to the UE (Christopher; P-CSCF 150A & P-CSCF 150B of Fig. 1 via Network 130 of Fig. 1 to CD 120 of Fig. 1); and
attempting to establish a second connection to the selected secondary P-CSCF server (Christopher; Add Restoration Indication and Send to Alternate P-CSCF 67 of Fig. 6), wherein the secondary connection supports a registration to an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) for the UE to conduct the voice call as the voice session over 5G NR (Christopher; If a computing device becomes unavailable, a backup computing device may be requested to provide services to user devices on a temporary basis to allow call completion. Messages to the backup computing device instance may indicate the basis for service issues and prompt further action by the computing device, such as registration with an alternative computing device, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Christopher teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a failure of the second connection to the selected secondary P-CSCF server, performing actions to conduct the voice call as the voice session over 5G NR. (Christopher; If a computing device becomes unavailable, a backup computing device may be requested to provide services to user devices on a temporary basis to allow call completion. Messages to the backup computing device instance may indicate the basis for service issues and prompt further action by the computing device, such as registration with an alternative computing device, Abstract & CD 120 over 130 of Fig. 1; where 130 of Fig. 1 is a 5G network, Par. 0026)
Regarding claim 7, Christopher teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
wherein the initial P- CSCF server and the plurality of P-CSCF servers are deployed on the IMS infrastructure. (Christopher; A plurality of P-CSCF servers may be provisioned in the IMS Core 110, Par. 0027)
Regarding claim 20, Christopher teaches, the computer system of claim 19,
wherein the computing system is a 5G-enabled mobile computing device. (Christopher; (Christopher; CD 120 over 130 of Fig. 1; where 130 of Fig. 1 is a 5G network, Par. 0026
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher in view of Deivasigamani et al. (Deivasigamani hereafter) (US 2016/0353344 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Christopher teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach,
wherein the second connection to the selected secondary P-CSCF server is a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection.
However, Deivasigamani teaches,
wherein the second connection to the selected secondary P-CSCF server is a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection. (Deivasigamani; determining whether the UE has switched a connection from a first network to a second network and when it is determined that the UE has switched the connection to the second network, initiating an action by the UE. The action includes one of re-initiating a TCP connection with a Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) of an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the second network, resetting a registration timer of the UE, wherein the registration timer is based on a connection with the IMS of the second network and wherein when the registration timer expires, the UE reinitiates a TCP connection with the P-CSCF of the IMS of the second network, Par. 0007)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Regarding claim 4, Christopher – Deivasigamani teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 3,
wherein performing actions to conduct the voice call as the voice session over 5G NR (Christopher; where 130 of Fig. 1 is a 5G network) comprises:
establishing a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) session over the TCP connection, wherein the SIP session supports the registration to the IMS for the UE. (Deivasigamani; determining whether the UE has switched a connection from a first network to a second network and when it is determined that the UE has switched the connection to the second network, initiating an action by the UE. The action includes one of re-initiating a TCP connection with a Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) of an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the second network, resetting a registration timer of the UE, wherein the registration timer is based on a connection with the IMS of the second network and wherein when the registration timer expires, the UE reinitiates a TCP connection with the P-CSCF of the IMS of the second network, Par. 0007)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Regarding claim 5, Christopher – Deivasigamani teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 4,
wherein the failure of the first connection to the initial P-CSCF server comprises identifying a TCP timeout. (Deivasigamani; a race condition occurs where the UE 110 attempts to originate a VoLTE call at or near the expiration of the timer, e.g., sends a SIP invite to the P-CSCF, but before receiving any response, the P-CSCF terminates the socket because the timer has timed out, Par. 0040)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher in view of Ratcliffe et al. (Ratcliffe hereafter) (US 2008/0254795).
Regarding claim 8, Christopher teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach,
wherein selecting a secondary P-CSCF server from a plurality of P-CSCF servers is based on a round-robin scheme.
However, Ratcliffe teaches,
wherein selecting a secondary P-CSCF server from a plurality of P-CSCF servers is based on a round-robin scheme. (Ratcliffe; a Session/Border Controller (S/BC) that distributes traffic to a VP-CSCF group can distribute traffic to any P-CSCF within the group that physically resides on an individual server. The S/BC can distribute traffic in a number of methods, e.g., round-robin…, Par. 0046)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher to include the above cited limitations as taught by Ratcliffe in order to allow for even distribution of traffic (Ratcliffe; Par. 0046).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher - Ratcliffe in view of Deivasigamani.
Regarding claim 9, Christopher – Ratcliffe teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
in response to a failure of the UE to connect to each of the plurality of P-CSCF servers, disconnecting a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session associated with the registration to the IMS for the UE; (Christopher; Alternative? No – Reject Call, 66 & 63 of Fig. 1), but fails to explicitly teach,
performing a subsequent PDU session establish procedure for reconnecting the PDU session to restore P-CSCF addresses corresponding to the initial P-CSCF server and the plurality of P-CSCF servers.
However, Deivasigamani teaches,
performing a subsequent PDU session establish procedure for reconnecting the PDU session to restore P-CSCF addresses corresponding to the initial P-CSCF server and the plurality of P-CSCF servers. (Deivasigamani; When this occurs, the UE 110 may attach to the legacy RAN 122 and re-register with the IMS 150 to, for example, receive SMS services via the legacy RAN 120…Subsequently, when the LTE-RAN 122 becomes available again to the UE 110, the UE 110 may then switch back and attach to the LTE-RAN 122., Par. 0024)
[The Examiner contends that switching to the legacy RAN upon failure and then switching back when it becomes available again means a new connection will be made causing the restoring of P-CSCF addresses as the address are given upon initial connection. Since the UE would be coming back from Legacy RAN, a new will be established causing the restoration of addresses. It is important to note that the limitations of restoration are written with intended use]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher - Ratcliffe to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Regarding claim 10, Christopher – Ratcliffe teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 8, 5G NR (Christopher; where 130 of Fig. 1 is a 5G network), but fails to explicitly teach, further comprising:
in response to a failure of the registration to the IMS for the UE, temporarily disabling LTE -RAN on the UE; (Deivasigamani; the UE 110 implements a connection counter to determine the number of times it has been unsuccessful in responding to a page to connect a call. The switch to the legacy RAN 120 is controlled based on this counter. If the connection counter reaches a threshold amount, e.g., a number of times the MT device (UE 110) has not successfully responded to the page, the MT device (UE 110) will switch from the LTE-RAN 122 to the legacy RAN 120 to attempt to connect the call via the circuit switched network, Par. 0029)
completing a radio access technology (RAT) selection of 2G or 3G for the UE; (Deivasigamani; When this occurs, the UE 110 may attach to the legacy RAN 122 and re-register with the IMS 150 to, for example, receive SMS services via the legacy RAN 120. The UE 110, as part of attaching to the legacy RAN 120, may have to switch the internal stack from the LTE stack to a legacy stack. In addition, because the UE is re-registering with the IMS 150, the UE 110 may receive a new IP address, Par. 0024.; Examples of the legacy RAN 120 may include those networks that are generally labeled as 2G and/or 3G networks and may include circuit switched voice calls and packet switched data operations, Par. 0018; the UE 110 implements a connection counter to determine the number of times it has been unsuccessful in responding to a page to connect a call. The switch to the legacy RAN 120 is controlled based on this counter. If the connection counter reaches a threshold amount, e.g., a number of times the MT device (UE 110) has not successfully responded to the page, the MT device (UE 110) will switch from the LTE-RAN 122 to the legacy RAN 120 to attempt to connect the call via the circuit switched network, Par. 0029)
bringing up circuit switched fallback (CSFB); (Deivasigamani; the network arrangement 100 may implement a circuit switched fallback (“CSFB”) functionality, Par. 0026) and
conducting the voice call using circuit switch voice services. (Deivasigamani; Par. 0024-0026)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher - Ratcliffe to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Regarding claim 11, Christopher – Ratcliffe - Deivasigamani teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 10,
wherein the failure of the registration to the IMS for the UE is based on the UE failing to connect to each of the plurality of P-CSCF servers. (Deivasigamani; the UE 110 implements a connection counter to determine the number of times it has been unsuccessful in responding to a page to connect a call. The switch to the legacy RAN 120 is controlled based on this counter. If the connection counter reaches a threshold amount, e.g., a number of times the MT device (UE 110) has not successfully responded to the page, the MT device (UE 110) will switch from the LTE-RAN 122 to the legacy RAN 120 to attempt to connect the call via the circuit switched network, Par. 0029)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher - Ratcliffe to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Regarding claim 12, Christopher – Ratcliffe - Deivasigamani teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 10,
further comprising re- enabling the 5G NR (Christopher; where 130 of Fig. 1 is a 5G network). (Deivasigamani Subsequently, when the LTE-RAN 122 becomes available again to the UE 110, the UE 110 may then switch back and attach to the LTE-RAN 122, Par. 0024)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher - Ratcliffe to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher in view of Deivasigamani and in further view of Huang et al. (Huang hereafter) (US 2022/0053031 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Christoper teaches, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach, further comprising:
maintaining a count of the number of failed connections with the initial P-CSCF server;
in response to the count having reached the defined threshold, placing the initial P-CSCF server on a blacklist associated with the registration to the IMS for the UE.
However, Deivasigamani teaches,
maintaining a count of the number of failed connections with the initial P-CSCF server… in response to the count having reached the defined threshold; (Deivasigamani; when it is determined the voice call was not successfully connected, incrementing a value of a counter, determining whether the value of the counter satisfies a threshold and when the value satisfies the threshold, switching from the first network to a second network., Par. 0005)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher to include the above cited limitations as taught by Deivasigamani in order to complete a call when a connection fails (Deivasigamani; Par. 0007).
Christopher – Deivasigamani fails to explicitly teach,
in response to the count having reached the defined threshold, placing the initial P-CSCF server on a blacklist associated with the registration to the IMS for the UE.
However, Huang teaches,
placing the initial P-CSCF server on a blacklist associated with the registration to the IMS for the UE. (Huang; At step 8, the S-CSCF 304 may not detect the failure of the P-CSCF 302. In this case, the S-CSCF 304 may transmit the INVITE to the failed P-CSCF 302, and some error response codes may be returned or the request may end up with timeout. Particularly, the S-CSCF 304 may check healthiness of the P-CSCF 302 using a heart-beat mechanism, e.g., by transmitting periodical SIP OPTIONs as a health check. If the P-CSCF 302 does not respond to the SIP OPTIONs, the S-CSCF 304 may add the P-CSCF 302 to a blacklist based on a local policy., Par. 0060)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Christopher - Deivasigamani to include the above cited limitations as taught by Huang in order to comply with local policy (Huang; Par. 0060).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noel R Beharry whose telephone number is (571)270-5630. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5pm.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
NOEL R. BEHARRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416