DETAILED ACTION
This Communication is a First Action on the Merits (FAOM). Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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, 2, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al (2020/0186574 A1) in view of Menon et al (11,509,704 B1).
As per Claim 1, Amin teaches method of testing a first Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) call processing entity in a lab environment: performing a twinning configuration procedure on a second SIP call processing entity, said second SIP call processing entity operating in a production network; generating, configuration information for use in configuring the first SIP call processing entity based on configuration information obtained during said twinning configuration procedure (Amin: Figure 6 – References 400A, 400B, 602 and 608; Page 7, Paragraph [0074] – Page 8, Paragraph [0078]).
(Note: Figure 6 is an illustration of a NOTIFY message being sent containing configuration information between two session border controllers [SBC] where after the completion of the exchanged SIP messaging the two SBC’s have the same configuration [i.e. performing a twinning configuration procedure on a second SIP call processing entity]. This is further explained by Amin in paragraphs [0074] – [0078])
Amin does not teach a lab environment with an automated test system testing a plurality of test cases said plurality of test cases including a first test case based on a first reference call flow record for a first SIP call processed by the second SIP call processing entity or based on a first trace record for the first SIP call.
However, Menon teaches a lab environment with an automated test system testing a plurality of test cases said plurality of test cases including a first test case based on a first reference call flow record for a first SIP call processed by the second SIP call processing entity or based on a first trace record for the first SIP call (Abstract; Column 2, Lines 60-67; Column 3, Lines 1-12; Column 11, Lines 55-65). (Note: In the Abstract; Column 2, Lines 60-67; Column 3, Lines 1-12 – Menon describes using test scripts that define logic flows [i.e. call flows] between two end points. In Column 11, Lines 55-65; the use of SIP taught)
The combination of Amin and Menon teaches storing, by the automated test system, said generated configuration information (Amin: Figure 7 – Reference 726 and 730; Figure 8 – Reference 810; Page 9, Paragraphs [0090] – [0092]). (Note: In paragraphs [0090] – [0092], Amin describes a data store for processed information which includes SIP node [i.e. session border controller – SBC] configuration data)
The combination of Amin and Menon also teaches executing, by the automated test system, the first test case, said executing the first test case including sending one or more SIP messages to the first SIP call processing entity while said first SIP call processing entity is operating in said lab environment, said first SIP call processing entity being configured using said generated configuration information (Menon: Abstract; Column 2, Lines 60-67; Column 3, Lines 1-12; Column 11, Lines 55-65).
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 Amin with the method taught by Menon to provide a high-fidelity, non-intrusive method to validate routing policies and identify network issues by copying production SIP signaling/media traffic to a separate test environment to allow the analysis of real-world scenarios without affecting live call traffic.
As per Claims 2 and 14, Amin teaches wherein said first SIP call processing entity is a first Session Border Controller; and wherein said second SIP call processing entity is a second Session Border Controller as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 11, the combination of Amin and Menon teaches performing, by an automated test system, a second twinning configuration procedure on a third SIP call processing entity, said third SIP call processing entity operating in a different production network than said second SIP call processing entity; generating, by the automated test system, second configuration information for use in configuring the first SIP call processing entity in the lab environment for a second plurality of test cases based on configuration information obtained during said second twinning configuration procedure, said second plurality of test cases including a second test case based on a second reference call flow record for a second SIP call processed by the third SIP processing entity or based on a second trace record for the second SIP call; and executing, by the automated test system, the second test case, said executing the second test case including sending one or more SIP messages to the first SIP call processing entity while said first SIP processing entity is operating in said lab environment, said first SIP call processing entity being configured using said generated second configuration information as described in Claim 1.
(Note: Claim 11 differs from Claim 1 in that Claim 11 is applying the twinning procedure to an additional SIP call processing entity which is a scaling the peering described by Amin as described in Claim 1 and the executing of addition test cases.) 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 Amin with the method taught by Menon to provide a high-fidelity, non-intrusive method to validate routing policies and identify network issues by copying production SIP signaling/media traffic to a separate test environment to allow the analysis of real-world scenarios without affecting live call traffic.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Amin and Menon teaches performing, by an automated test system, a second twinning configuration procedure on the second SIP call processing entity after said configuration of the second SIP call processing entity has been modified; generating, by the automated test system, second configuration information for use in configuring the first SIP call processing entity in the lab environment for a second plurality of test cases based on configuration information obtained during said second twinning configuration procedure, said second plurality of test cases including a second test case based on a second reference call flow record for a second SIP call processed by the second SIP processing entity or based on a second trace record for the second SIP call; and executing, by the automated test system, the second test case, said executing the second test case including sending one or more SIP messages to the first SIP call processing entity while said first SIP processing entity is operating in said lab environment, said first SIP call processing entity being configured using said generated second configuration information.
(Note: Claim 12 builds on Claims 1 and 11 in that once the second SIP call processing entity configuration has been modified performing a second twinning configuration procedure. Which allows for changes to be made to allow a diverse range of situations to be contemplated when performing call testing in a lab environment)
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 Amin with the method taught by Menon to provide a high-fidelity, non-intrusive method to validate routing policies and identify network issues by copying production SIP signaling/media traffic to a separate test environment to allow the analysis of real-world scenarios without affecting live call traffic.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Amin and Menon teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Amin also teaches memory (Figure 7 – Reference 708; Page 9, Paragraph [0084]); and a first processor (Figure 7 – Reference 704; Page 9, Paragraph [0084]). 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 Amin with the method and system taught by Menon to provide a high-fidelity, non-intrusive method to validate routing policies and identify network issues by copying production SIP signaling/media traffic to a separate test environment to allow the analysis of real-world scenarios without affecting live call traffic.
As per Claim 20, the combination of Amin and Menon teaches a method as described in Claim 1. Amin also teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including a first set of computer executable instructions (Page 8, Paragraph [0083]). 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 Amin with the method taught by Menon to provide a high-fidelity, non-intrusive method to validate routing policies and identify network issues by copying production SIP signaling/media traffic to a separate test environment to allow the analysis of real-world scenarios without affecting live call traffic.
Claim(s) 3-8 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al (2020/0186574 A1) in view of Menon et al (11,509,704 B1) as applied to Claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Degaonkar et al (2010/0138551 A1).
As per Claims 3 and 15, the combination of Amin and Menon teaches wherein said twinning procedure includes: downloading from the second SIP call processing entity, by the automated test system, first configuration information for the second SIP call processing entity, said first configuration information corresponding to configuration information for the second SIP call processing entity when the second SIP call processing entity processed a first plurality of SIP calls, said first plurality of SIP calls including the first SIP call as described in Claims 1 and 13.
The combination of Amin and Menon does not teach generating transforms to modify the downloaded first configuration information to generate a first test configuration for the first SIP call processing entity, said transforms including one or more SIP signaling port transforms, one or more remote device contact transforms, and one or more IP interface transforms.
However, Degaonkar teaches generating transforms to modify the downloaded first configuration information to generate a first test configuration for the first SIP call processing entity, said transforms including one or more SIP signaling port transforms, one or more remote device contact transforms, and one or more IP interface transforms (Figure 4A – References 410, 412, 414 and 416; Page 17, Paragraph [0132]; Page 18, Paragraph [0136] – Page 19, Paragraph [0143]; Page 20, Paragraph [0158]).
(Note: In paragraph [0132], Degaonkar describes an appliance [i.e. automated test system] applying transform techniques to configuration information [i.e. IP addresses or servers specified via DNS]. As described above in Amin, a twinning operation is performed where SBC configuration information is exchanged using SIP messaging [SIP SUBCRIBE and SIP NOTIFY message exchange: See Figures 5 and 6] resulting in SIP node configurations being stored as shown in Figure 7 of Amin. In order to enable testing/communication the stored configuration must include ports, remote device and IP address information which would also need to be transformed to enable testing)
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 Amin and Menon with the method and system taught by Degaonkar to enable the simulation of Network Address Translation (NAT) scenarios where UE (User Equipment) private IP addresses and ports are mapped to public ones by an SBC (Session Border Controller) or P-CSCF. This ensures call flows (e.g., SIP INVITE, 200 OK) correctly map back to the initiating device.
As per Claims 4 and 16, the combination of Amin, Menon and Degaonkar teaches wherein the one or more SIP signaling port transforms are transforms for one or more configured SIP signaling ports in the first configuration information; wherein the one or more remote device contact transforms are transforms for configured contact information in the first configuration information for one or more of the following: a Policy and Routing (PSX server), a Diameter Rx server, a Domain Name System (DNS) server, and ENUM server; and wherein the one or more IP interface transforms are transforms for one or more configured IP interfaces in the first configuration information as described in Claims 1 and 3 above.
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 Amin and Menon with the method and system taught by Degaonkar to enable the simulation of Network Address Translation (NAT) scenarios where UE (User Equipment) private IP addresses and ports are mapped to public ones by an SBC (Session Border Controller) or P-CSCF. This ensures call flows (e.g., SIP INVITE, 200 OK) correctly map back to the initiating device.
As per Claims 5 and 17, the combination of Amin, Menon and Degaonkar teaches applying said generated transforms to modify first configuration information included in the downloaded configuration information from the second SIP call processing entity to generate the first test configuration for the first SIP call processing entity.
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 Amin and Menon with the method and system taught by Degaonkar to enable the simulation of Network Address Translation (NAT) scenarios where UE (User Equipment) private IP addresses and ports are mapped to public ones by an SBC (Session Border Controller) or P-CSCF. This ensures call flows (e.g., SIP INVITE, 200 OK) correctly map back to the initiating device.
As per Claims 6 and 18, the combination of Amin, Menon and Degaonkar teaches prior to executing said first test case, loading the first test configuration onto the first SIP call processing entity. (Note: The Examiner is considering the twinning operation described by Amin as occurring prior to running said first test case)
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 Amin and Menon with the method and system taught by Degaonkar to enable the simulation of Network Address Translation (NAT) scenarios where UE (User Equipment) private IP addresses and ports are mapped to public ones by an SBC (Session Border Controller) or P-CSCF. This ensures call flows (e.g., SIP INVITE, 200 OK) correctly map back to the initiating device.
As per Claims 7 and 19, the combination of Amin, Menon and Degaonkar teaches applying at least one SIP signaling port transforms which modifies an IP address for a first SIP signaling port on the second SIP call processing device to a different IP address to be used by a first SIP signaling port on the first SIP call processing device; applying at least one remote device contact transform which modifies an Internet Protocol address for a first remote device in the first configuration information to a different IP address for a first test remote device; and applying at least IP interface transform which modifies an IP address for a first IP interface on the second SIP call processing device to a different IP address to be used by a first IP interface on the first SIP call processing device.
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 Amin and Menon with the method and system taught by Degaonkar to enable the simulation of Network Address Translation (NAT) scenarios where UE (User Equipment) private IP addresses and ports are mapped to public ones by an SBC (Session Border Controller) or P-CSCF. This ensures call flows (e.g., SIP INVITE, 200 OK) correctly map back to the initiating device.
As per Claim 8, the combination of Amin, Menon and Degaonkar teaches modifying a production Domain Name System (DNS) server IP address included in the first configuration information to a lab DNS server IP address. 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 Amin and Menon with the method taught by Degaonkar to enable the simulation of Network Address Translation (NAT) scenarios where UE (User Equipment) private IP addresses and ports are mapped to public ones by an SBC (Session Border Controller) or P-CSCF. This ensures call flows (e.g., SIP INVITE, 200 OK) correctly map back to the initiating device.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al (2020/0186574 A1) in view of Menon et al (11,509,704 B1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kovvali et al (2021/0385331 A1).
As per Claim 9, the combination of Amin and Menon teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach emulating, by the first automated test system, one or more devices or entities which communicate with the first SIP call processing entity during the execution of the first test case. However, Kovvali teaches emulating, by the first automated test system, one or more devices or entities which communicate with the first SIP call processing entity during the execution of the first test case (Page 1, Paragraph [0015] and [0016]).
(Note: In paragraph [0016], Kovvali describes call emulation as constructing a finite state machine representing the state of a call based on event data from protocol data received from probes or other network elements. Kovvali also describes constructing a per-call state machine reflecting the state of the call and summarizing overall key performance indicators [i.e. KPIs] per call)
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 Amin and Menon with the method taught by Kovvali to create specific, repeatable scenarios in a lab environment, including Registration, Deregistration, VoLTE voice calls, and SMS over IP. This includes testing intricate call flows between roaming and non-roaming users, or interworking with legacy PSTN networks.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Amin, Menon and Kovvali teaches (i) exchanging, by the automated test system, one or more SIP messages with the first SIP call processing entity as indicated in a test script for the first test case, (ii) receiving by the automated test system one or more requests from the first SIP call processing entity sent to the one or more emulated devices or entities, and (iii) responding as indicated in the test script for the first test case to the received requests from the first SIP call processing entity (Kovvali: Page 8, Paragraph [0078]).
(Note: In paragraph [0078], Kovvali indicates that each transaction [i.e. emulated phone call/communication] includes a request and one or more response events providing the example of a call attempt/transaction [i.e. INVITE] being completed with a respective response [i.e. 200 OK or provisional progress response]. Kovvali also indicates each response has cause attributes [i.e. status codes and/or reason header] which serve to differentiate success codes, client failures, server failures, etc. at the transaction level)
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 Amin and Menon with the method taught by Kovvali to create specific, repeatable scenarios in a lab environment, including Registration, Deregistration, VoLTE voice calls, and SMS over IP. This includes testing intricate call flows between roaming and non-roaming users, or interworking with legacy PSTN networks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luna et al (2004/0160896 A1), Gilfix et al (2007/0008892 A1), Chau et al (2006/0262729 A1), Abdelal et al (2011/0202645 A1), Regev et al (2016/0134864 A1), STEWART (2019/0158543 A1), Khalil et al (2014/0359462 A1) and BRIGGS (2021/0153042 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods of testing, simulating or modeling communication routing within packet-based networks.
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
Prosecution Insights