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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments are supported by the Specification. Examine respectfully disagrees. (See 112(a) Rejection).
Specifically, Examiner notes that the Specification does not support for a first protocol and a second protocol as being necessarily different. Specification [0080] provides that both the first network address and the second network address can both be IPv4 or both be IPv6, i.e. the addresses can be of the same protocol.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets both the first protocol and the second protocol as being the same.
Applicant argues that the claim amendments overcome the prior art rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. (see 112(a) Rejection).
As noted, Examiner interprets a first protocol and a second protocol as being covering when the first protocol and the second protocol are the same, and as such this limitation is taught by the existing prior art, Bartolome ¶0064, wherein supporting Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedure teaches the network addresses as being of a “protocol.”
Furthermore, Examiner notes that the other claim amendment reciting “when the first network address and the second network address were previously received together” does not have patentable weight. Specifically, Claim 1 covers a processor configured to “determine…” However, the “when” amendment does not limit that determination step, but rather specifies a particular condition wherein the determination step must be enabled for.
As such, a general teaching of the determination step is sufficient to teach the claim as the step is indifferent to when the address are received, and as such covers all various timing of receiving the network addresses. For example, if the claim amendment instead wrote “when the date is a Thursday,” so long as the step is not date-dependent, it will be considered date-independent, and thus teach the subject matter across all day, which includes Thursday.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “determine whether a second network address of a second protocol for a Proxy Call Session Control Function (PCSCF) of a network is available in response to receiving an indication that a first network address of a first protocol…”
However, while Applicant cites [0080] of the Specification, Examiner does not find this to be adequate support for the claim amendment. Specification [0080] discloses “in response to receiving a message or indication that a first network address to the PCSCF (e.g., for IPV6 or IPv4 service) is no longer available, such as receiving an IPV6 NULL message or an IPV4 NULL message, the processing system may determine whether a second network address (e.g., for IPV4 or IPv6 service) for the PCSCF is available.”
While the Specification identifies two protocols for the second and first network addresses, the Specification does not support that the second network address and the first network address have different protocols. In fact, the Specification explicitly supports that the first network address and the second network address can have the same protocol.
Claims 2-24 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the first and second protocol as including when the first protocol and the second protocol are the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
2. Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartolome Rodrigo et al. (US 20150195864 A1).
Claim 1 Bartolome teaches a computing device, comprising:
a wireless transceiver; (¶0024, transmitter) and
a processor coupled to the memory (¶0027, processor memory) and configured to:
determine whether a second network address of a second protocol for a Proxy Call Session Control Function (PCSCF) of a network is available (Bartolome, ¶0064, determine whether a secondary PCSCF address is available, based on supporting Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedure, wherein Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedure comprises a protocol) in response to receiving an indication that a first network address of a first protocol to the PCSCF is no longer available in an Internet protocol (IP) multimedia service (IMS) session (Bartolome, FIG. 1., ¶0059, receiving “Update Bearer Request/Update PDP Context Request,” i.e. an indication that a first network address to the PCSCF is unavailable; ¶0001, within a IP Multimedia Service session; wherein the first protocol and the second protocol are both the Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedure) when the first network and the second network address were previously received together; (Examiner notes that this limitation does not have patentable weight, as the limitation does not limit determination step as being in response to this condition, but rather the determination step must merely be performable given this condition, and determinations are not dependent when data is received)
attempt to perform an initial registration with the second network address to the PCSCF in response to determining that the second network address is available; (Bartolome, ¶0060, perform registration in response to a second available address) and
bring down the IMS session with the network in response to determining that the second network address is not available. (Bartolome, ¶0064, releasing the IMS session in response to determining that a secondary PCSCF is not available based on not supporting Rel-9 P-CSCF Restoration procedure)
Claim 4 Bartolome teaches Claim 1, and further teaches wherein the processor is further configure to attempt to establish an IMS connection to a data packet network using a different radio access technology (Bartolome, FIG. 3, ¶0088, attempting to establish an IMS connection via an IMS PDN release request, and re-establishment of a PDN connection; Examiner notes that while the “radio access technology” is not explicitly named, as the UE does not support Rel-9 P-CSCF technology, this would necessarily be different from Rel-9 P-CSCF technology) in response to failure of the attempt to perform an initial registration with the second network address to the PCSCF. (Bartolome, FIG. 3, S-330, ¶0087, wherein the UE does not support Rel-9 P-CSCF technology, and therefore fails registration according to Rel-9 P-CSCF procedures)
Claim 7 is taught by Bartolome as described for Claim 1.
Claim 10 is taught by Bartolome as described for Claim 4.
Claim 13 is taught by Bartolome as described for Claim 1.
Claim 16 is taught by Bartolome as described for Claim 4.
Claim 19 is taught by Bartolome as described for Claim 1.
Claim 22 is taught by Bartolome as described for Claim 4.
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.
2. Claims 2-3, 8-9, 14-15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartolome Rodrigo et al. (US 20150195864 A1) in view of Tagare et al. (US 20230269830 A1).
Claim 2 Bartolome teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach determine whether a second network address for the PCSCF’s available by:
creating a second network address for the PCSCF; and
querying the network whether the second network address for the PCSCF is valid; and attempt to perform an initial registration with the second network address to the PCSCF by maintaining the IMS session with the network while requesting a new connection to the network using the created second network address to the PCSCF in response to receiving an indication the second network address for the PCSCF is valid.
From a related technology, Tagare teaches determine whether a second network address for the PCSCF’s available by:
creating a second network address for the PCSCF; (Tagare, FIG. 7, step 702, ¶0087, transmit a request to set up an emergency packet data network (ePDN), wherein doing so creates multiple, i.e. a second, network address for the PCSCF) and
querying the network whether the second network address for the PCSCF is valid; (Tagare, FIG. 7, step 706, ¶0090, transmitting a registering message to the second network address, wherein ¶0091, FIG. 7, step 708, wherein receiving a request comprises receiving a valid response to network query regarding the validity of the second network address) and
attempt to perform an initial registration with the second network address to the PCSCF (Tagare, FIG. 7, step 710, ¶0093, establishing a connection, i.e. performing the requested registering to the PCSCF) by maintaining the IMS session with the network (Tagare, FIG. 6, ¶0077, maintaining call session, ¶0040, wherein the call session is an IMS session) while requesting a new connection to the network using the created second network address to the PCSCF (Tagare, ¶0090, wherein connection request is an additional or new connection as multiple connections are attempted) in response to receiving an indication the second network address for the PCSCF is valid. (Tagare, ¶0091, wherein a response is received from the query indicating the validity of the PCSCF)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bartolome to incorporate the teachings of Tagare in order to utilize well-known techniques available for determining availability of PCSCF addresses in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Claim 3 Bartolome in view of Tagare teaches Claim 2, and further teaches
release the connection to the network using the first network address to the PCSCF in response to receiving an indication that the new connection to the network; (Bartolome, FIG. 3, S-335, ¶0088, releasing the first network address, i.e. 4a P-CSCF, upon receiving an indication of the new connection, 4b P-CSCF) and
continue the IMS session with the network using the second network address for the PCSCF. (Bartolome, FIG. 3, ¶0088, continuing the IMS session using the second address)
Claims 8-9 are taught by Bartolome in view of Tagare as described for Claims 2-3 respectively.
Claims 14-15 are taught by Bartolome in view of Tagare as described for Claims 2-3 respectively.
Claims 20-21 are taught by Bartolome in view of Tagare as described for Claims 2-3 respectively.
3. Claims 5-6, 11-12, 17-18, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartolome Rodrigo et al. (US 20150195864 A1) in view of Belghoul et al. (US 20140233616 A1).
Claim 5 Bartolome teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first network address to the PCSCF is an address for an IP version 6 (IPv6) address to the PCSCF and the second network address to the PCSCF is an IP version 4 (IPv4) address to the PCSCF.
From a related technology, Belghoul teaches a first network address to the PCSCF is an address for an IP version 6 (IPv6) address to the PCSCF and the second network address to the PCSCF is an IP version 4 (IPv4) address to the PCSCF. (Belghoul, ¶0065, wherein a network address for an PCSCF can be an IPv6 address or an IPv4 address)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bartolome to incorporate the teachings of Belghoul that utilize IP version 6 and IP version 4 addresses for PCSCFs in order to more effectively utilize well-known addressing technology that provides greater network efficiency.
Claim 6 Bartolome teaches Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the first network address to the PCSCF is an address for an IP version 4 (IPv4) address to the PCSCF and the second network address to the PCSCF is an IP version 6 (IPv6) address to the PCSCF.
From a related technology, Belghoul teaches a first network address to the PCSCF is an address for an IP version 4 (IPv4) address to the PCSCF and the second network address to the PCSCF is an IP version 6 (IPv6) address to the PCSCF. (Belghoul, ¶0065, wherein a network address for an PCSCF can be an IPv6 address or an IPv4 address)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Bartolome to incorporate the teachings of Belghoul that utilize IP version 6 and IP version 4 addresses for PCSCFs in order to more effectively utilize well-known addressing technology that provides greater network efficiency.
Claims 11-12 are taught by Bartolme in view of Belghoul as described for Claims 5-6 respectively.
Claims 17-18 are taught by Bartolme in view of Belghoul as described for Claims 5-6 respectively.
Claims 23-24 are taught by Bartolme in view of Belghoul as described for Claims 5-6 respectively.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, William Trost can be reached at (571) 272-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2442
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2442