DETAILE ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/24/2023 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6,16 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kramar merely discloses internal labeling of phone numbers and does not transmit such information via SIP signaling to another UE. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the rejection. The rejection does not rely on Kramar to disclose transmission of information via SIP messages. Rather, Kramar is cited for teaching classification and management of phone numbers associated with a device based on usage state (e.g., primary or secondary numbers). Sinha is relied upon for teaching transmission of caller information via SIP signaling between UEs. The obviousness rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references, and it is improper to attack the references individually where the rejection relies on their combined disclosures.
Applicant argues that Sinha discloses transmission of only a single phone number in a SIP message. However, the claim only requires identifying whether the SIP message includes at least one phone number different from the unique phone number of the first UE, and does not require that the SIP message necessarily include multiple phone numbers in all instances. Furthermore, Kazami teaches providing multiple phone numbers associated with a calling terminal. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include such additional phone number information in a SIP message as taught by Sinha in order to convey additional caller identification information to the receiving UE. The combination merely applies known SIP signaling techniques to known caller identification information, yielding predictable results.
Applicant argues that Kazami does not disclose transmission of phone numbers using SIP signaling. However, the rejection does not rely on Kazami to teach SIP signaling. Kazami is cited for teaching the concept of providing multiple phone numbers associated with a calling device, while Sinha teaches transmitting caller information between UEs using SIP messages. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known concept of multiple phone numbers associated with a device into the SIP signaling framework taught by Sinha in order to communicate additional caller identification information to the receiving UE.
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.
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.
Claims 6,7,10,16,17,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazami (JP 2009088734) in view of Sinha (US 20230300419, hereinafter Sinha) in further view of Kramar et al. (US 20200084117, hereinafter Kramar) in further view of Gayaldo (US 20220272190)
Regarding claim 6, Kazami discloses a method performed by a second user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first UE, a message from a first UE (Overview: Lines 5-9; A call termination message is sent from a first UE to second UE);
identifying that a first number of the first UE is not stored (Overview: Lines 9-11; The address book is checked to see if the first cell phone is included in it);
identifying that the message includes a second phone number different from the unique phone number of the first UE (Overview: Lines 9-13; A second phone number was also checked, thus it was identified);
storing the first number of the first UE; and merging the first phone number to a contact in the second UE including the second phone number (Par. 39: Lines 5-10; The first caller identification information is stored as new registration information in the same directory including the second caller identification information (merging)).
Kazami discloses the message is a call termination rather than SIP message.
Sinha, however, discloses sending information from a calling UE to a called UE via an SIP Invite message (Par. 0018: Lines 10-17; SIP Invite message is sent from calling UE to called UE with information about the calling UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of that claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kazami to use SIP messages as taught by Sinha, since SIP is a known protocol for transmitting information.
Sinha discloses sending a SIP message with information about the calling UE (Par. 0018: Lines 10-17; SIP Invite message is sent from calling UE to called UE with information about the calling UE), but does not specify what this meta data is, while Kazami discloses receiving a message with multiple number (Overview: Lines 9-13; A second phone number was also checked, thus it was identified). Kazami in view of Sinha does not disclose identifying that the SIP message further includes first information on a first usage state of the first phone number and second information on a second usage state of the second phone number, wherein the first usage state or the second usage state is one of a permanent state, a temporary state, or an invalid state.
Kramar, however, discloses first information on a first usage state of the first phone number and second information on a second usage state of the second phone number, wherein the first usage state if the second usage state is one of a permanent state, a temporary state, or an invalid state (Par. 335: Lines 23-29; Multiple cellular identifiers have usage states of default (primary), secondary (temporary), or invalid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SIP message of Sinha, as utilized in the system of Kazami that communicates multiple phone numbers, to further include the usage state information associated with each phone number as taught by Kramar, so that the receiving UE can properly interpret the role or availability of each phone number (e.g., primary/default, secondary, or inactive). Such modification merely transmits known metadata associated with the phone numbers and would have yielded the predictable result of enabling the receiving UE to process and display the numbers consistent with their respective usage states.
Kazami discloses displaying the first phone number and the name associated with the second phone number (Par. 36: Lines 9-11; The first caller identification and the name corresponding to the second caller identification are displayed). Kazami in view of Sinha, in view of Kramar does not disclose displaying the second phone number.
Gayaldo, however, discloses the ability to display both a name, and number of a caller (Par. 50: Lines 1-5; The name and number of the originating calling device can be dispalyed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kazami, as combined with Sinha and Kramar, to display the second phone number as taught by Gayaldo, since Gayaldo teaches displaying both the name and the phone number of a calling device. Incorporating this feature would allow the receiving UE to present complete caller identification information to the user, including both the name and the associated phone number, thereby improving the clarity and usefulness of the displayed call information. Such modification merely applies a known caller identification display technique to the combined system and would have yielded the predictable result of enabling the receiving UE to display the phone number associated with the caller in addition to any corresponding name information.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Kazami teaches deactivating a function of blocking an un-stored phone number based on a message including the second phone number (Par. 0075; If a first UEs calling phone number is not registered in the address book of a receiving UE, an alternate number associated with the first UE will be analyzed (i.e. first number was not blocked). This is done to avoid the problem of a caller rejecting a call due it originating from an unknown number (i.e. blocking function)).
Kazami teaches the message is a call termination rather than SIP message.
Sinha, however, discloses sending information from a calling UE to a called UE via an SIP Invite message (Par. 0018: Lines 10-17; SIP Invite message is sent from calling UE to called UE with information about the calling UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of that claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo to use SIP messages as taught by Sinha, since SIP is a known protocol for transmitting information.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6, Kazami discloses based on a message including the second phone number, updating, based on the second phone number, contacts in the second UE. (Par. 0039: Lines 7-10; The first phone number (i.e. the unknown one) is stored in the address book along with the information pertaining to the second phone number).
Kazami teaches the message is a call termination rather than SIP message.
Sinha, however, discloses sending information from a calling UE to a called UE via an SIP Invite message (Par. 0018: Lines 10-17; SIP Invite message is sent from calling UE to called UE with information about the calling UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of that claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo to use SIP messages as taught by Sinha, since SIP is a known protocol for transmitting information.
Regarding claim 16, Kazami discloses a first equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the first UE comprising:
a transceiver; and
a controller comprising processing circuitry coupled with a transceiver and
is configured to (A UE in a wireless communication necessarily includes a transceiver, a controller coupled to the transceiver, wherein the controller is programed to perform functions).
The remaining limitations were addressed in the rejection of claim 6. Therefore, the remaining limitations of claim 16 are addressed.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 16, the rejection of claim 7 addresses all the limitations of claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 are addressed.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 16, the rejection of claim 10 addresses all the limitations of claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 are addressed.
Claims 8,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazami (JP 2009088734) in view of Sinha (US 20230300419, hereinafter Sinha) in further view of Kramar et al. (US 20200084117, hereinafter Kramar) in further view of Gayaldo (US 20220272190) in further view of Ryou et al. (US 20100329241, hereinafter Ryou).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6, Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo teach a UE receiving multiple cellular identifiers (i.e. phone numbers) in an SIP message. The combination of references does not teach identifying whether the unique phone number of the first UE is included in a black list; based on the SIP message including at least one phone number different from the unique phone number of the first UE, identifying whether the at least one phone number is included in the black list; and based on the at least one phone number being included in the black list, blocking a call from the first UE.
Ryou, however, teaches the ability to determine whether a number is in a black list, and blocking the number based on it being in a black list (Par. 0078: If the calling phone number is included in a blacklist, the call connection request is rejected).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of that claimed invention to have combined the SIP message from a calling UE to a called UE including multiple phone numbers of Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo, with the ability to block a phone number if it is included in a blacklist of Ryou. Doing so would predictably prevent calls from blacklisted numbers when multiple identifiers are sent in a message, thereby improving call security.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 16, the rejection of claim 8 addresses all the limitations of claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 are addressed.
Claims 9,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazami (JP 2009088734) in view of Sinha (US 20230300419, hereinafter Sinha) in further view of Kramar et al. (US 20200084117, hereinafter Kramar) in further view of Gayaldo (US 20220272190) in further view of Bharrat et al. (US 20210184917, hereinafter Bharrat), in further view of Kim et al. (KR 100665819, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 6, Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo discloses being able to send and receive an SIP message from a calling UE to a called UE including multiple phone numbers. Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo does not disclose a key corresponding to the at least one phone number, and deleting a phone number corresponding to an invalid key in a list including the at least one phone number.
Bharrat, however, discloses a key, corresponding to the at least one phone number (Par. 0013: Lines 1-4; Key values corresponding to the calling party are included in a SIP message).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of that claimed invention to have modified the combined teachings of Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo with the key-based SIP signaling of Bharrat. Doing so would provide a mechanism for associating identifiers with SIP messages, thereby improving message integrity and enabling the receiving UE to authenticate and properly process the call setup.
Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo in further view of Bharrat does not disclose deleting a phone number corresponding to an invalid key in a list including the at least one phone number.
Kim, however, discloses the ability to delete an invalid phone number from a phone book (Summary: Lines 7-11; When a phone number is deemed to be invalid, it is deleted from the user’s phone book that lists the invalid numbers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of that claimed invention to have modified the message sent from a first UE to a second UE including multiple phone numbers with associated keys of Kazami in view of Sinha in further view of Kramar in further view of Gayaldo in further view of Bharrat, with the ability to delete invalid phone numbers from a phone book of Kim. Doing so would ensure accurate, up to date contact records, and a more reliable phone book.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 16, the rejection of claim 9 addresses all the limitations of claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 are addressed.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (572) 272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648