DETAILED 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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on June 08, 2026. Claims 1-20 are now currently pending in the present application.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Filart et al. (US 10681556 B2, hereinafter Filart) in view of Phan-Anh et al. (US 20070289009 A1, hereinafter Phan-Anh).
Consider Claim 1, Filart discloses a system of a telecommunications network, the system comprising:
an interconnect session border controller (I-SBC) configured as a network element disposed at a border between the telecommunications network and peer telecommunications networks, the I-SBC including:
at least one network interface; (Column 4 lines 37-39, the SIP server 126 may include input/output interface(s) 202. The input/output interface(s) 202 may include any type of output interface known in the art).
at least one hardware processor; and (column 4 lines 66-67, the SIP server 126 may include one or more processor(s) 206 that are operably connected to memory 208).
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the I-SBC to: (Column 5 lines 21-26, the memory 208 may further include non-transitory computer-readable media, such as volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data).
receive an inbound call over the at least one network interface, wherein the inbound call is associated with a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) identifier; (Column 4 lines 54-57, the network interface(s) 204 may include a radio transceiver that performs the function of transmitting and receiving radio frequency communications via an antenna).
receive an indication from the SCIF that the SIP identifier of the inbound call does not match any identifier on the list of allowable SIP identifiers, wherein any inbound call associated with any SIP identifier that does not match any SIP identifier on the list of allowable SIP identifiers is designated as an illegitimate call; and (column 9 lines 27-34, if the most recent instance of registration data indicates that the originating device is within a first PLMN (i.e. HPLMN or VPLMN), and the origin network identified within the SIP INVITE message indicates that the originating device is within a second PLMN that is different from the first PLMN (i.e. VPLMN or HPLMN), the mismatch may indicate that the identity of the originating device may be spoofed, and is likely unreliable).
reject the inbound call as an illegitimate call, wherein the illegitimate call is not forwarded to an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the telecommunications network. (Column 7 lines 49-56, the spoof mitigation component 220 may selectively terminate the call request for the VoIP communication based on an inference that the call request is associated with a spoof communication. the spoof mitigation component 220 may reply to the SIP INVITE message with a “not accepted” response, which similarly prevents the VoIP communication session from being established).
Filart discloses the claim invention but fails to teach send the SIP identifier to a Spoofed Call Identification Function (SCIF) of the telecommunications network.
However, Phan-Anh teaches send the SIP identifier to a Spoofed Call Identification Function (SCIF) of the telecommunications network (paragraph 0016, the attacker first sends a registration request with a spoofed SIP identity and a spoofed IP address (IP: Internet protocol) to a proxy server P-CSCF. The P-CSCF performs standard SIP processing of the request, including checking the "sent-by" parameter. Then, also as part of generic signaling procedure, the P-CSCF will forward the request toward a session control server S-CSCF via I-CSCF).
Phan-Anh teaches based on a comparison of the SIP identifier performed by the SCIF against a list of allowable SIP identifiers (paragraph 0085, a parameter such as "IP=not-dependable" to the P-Access-Network-Info header to indicate that the IP address used by the user (i.e. user equipment) cannot be trusted for authentication purposes, namely when a registration request has been received at the proxy server over an access network being categorized as "IP-not-dependable" (i.e. "not-trusted" and/or "shared"). At a receiving session control server, there exists a configuration parameter (list) in order to decide whether the content of the received P-Access-Network-Info is trustable or not based on the fact which proxy server has handled the request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 1, by incorporating Filart migration of spoof communication within a telecommunication network with the authentication of a user of a communication system includes a proxy server interfacing with a plurality of access networks of Phan-Anh. The motivation to do so would be develop the continual growth and advancement of mobile device technology for a call request from an originating device in a telecommunication system. Thereby, providing a viable and reliable authentication of the user in the communication system supporting multiple authentication schemes in a wireless communication systems.
Consider Claim 2, Filart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the inbound call is a first inbound call, and wherein the system is further caused to:
receive a second inbound call whose SIP identifier matches at least one identifier on the list of allowable SIP identifiers; receive an indication from the SCIF that the second inbound call is a legitimate call; and in response to the indication of the legitimate call from the SCIF, cause the I-SBC to admit the second inbound call. (Column 12 lines 6-13, the SIP server may determine that the spoof-likelihood score is less than the first predetermined spoof threshold and the second predetermined spoof threshold. the spoof-likelihood score is a low spoof-likelihood score, the SIP server may infer that the identity of the originating device is likely reliable. In doing so, the SIP server may transmit the SIP INVITE message to the recipient device to facilitate establishing the VoIP communication session between the originating device and the recipient device).
Consider Claim 3, Filart discloses the system of claim 2 further caused to: upon receiving an indication from the SCIF that the inbound call is legitimate, cause the I-SBC to forward the second inbound call to the IMS of the telecommunications network. (Column 4 lines 16-21, a gateway 138 may interface with the IMS core 112 and the LTE core 108. The gateway 138 may include one or more servers and related components that are tasked with providing connectivity between the IMS core 112, the LTE core 108, the client device(s) 110(1)-110(N), and the internet 140. More specifically, the gateway 138 may act as a point of entry and exit for network traffic into the telecommunications network 106).
Consider Claim 4, Filart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to:
receive the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include a unique SIP identifier known to the network operator. (Column 4 & 5 lines 66-67 & 1-10, the SIP server 126 may include one or more processor(s) 206 that are operably connected to memory 208. In at least one example, the one or more processor(s) 206 may be a central processing unit(s) (CPU), graphics processing unit(s) (GPU), or both a CPU and GPU or any other sort of processing unit(s). Each of the one or more processor(s) 206 may have numerous arithmetic logic units (ALUs) that perform arithmetic and logical operations as well as one or more control units (CUs) that extract instructions and stored content from processor cache memory, and then execute these instructions by calling on the ALUs, as necessary during program execution).
Consider Claim 5, Filart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to:
receive the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include a unique SIP identifier known to the network operator, wherein the SCIF is a hardware network element in the telecommunications network, and wherein the SCIF has at least one network interface that is communicatively coupled with the I-SBC. (Column 3 lines 27-33, the IBCF 124 is a network element deployed to protect the telecommunications network 106. The IBCF 124 may provide the telecommunications network 106 with measurements, access control, and data conversion facilities of communications received that the network edge. Column 16, the SIP server 126 may correspond to one of the I-CSCF 118 or the S-CSCF 120. In other examples, the SIP server 126 may be separate and communicatively coupled to the I-CSCF 118 or S-CSCF 120).
Consider Claim 6, Filart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to:
receive the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include a unique SIP identifier known to the network operator, and wherein the SCIF is collocated and integrated into the I-SBC. (Column3 lines 3-14, the IMS core 112 may include application function(s) (AF) 114, such as a Proxy Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) 116, an Interrogating Call Session Control Function (I-CSCF) 118, and a Serving Call Session Control Function (S-CSCF) 120, a Telephony Application Server (TAS) 122, an Interconnection Border Control Function (IBCF) 124, and a SIP server 126. The P-CSCF 116 behaves like a proxy by accepting requests and serving them internally or forwarding them towards to the I-CSCF 118 and S-CSCF 120. The S-CSCF 120 acts as a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) registrar and in some cases as a SIP redirect server( see fig.1)).
Consider Claim 7, Filart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to: receive the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include a unique SIP identifier known to the network operator, and wherein the SCIF is implemented as a software feature in a cloud storage service, and wherein the cloud storage service is communicatively coupled with the I-SBC. (Column 3 lines 14-20, the S-CSCF 120 is responsible for processing the location registration of a client device, client authentication, and call routing and processing. The I-CSCF 118 is tasked with selecting an S-CSCF 120 for serving an initial SIP request, particularly when a client device initiating the request does not know which S-CSCF 120 should receive the request(see fig 1)).
Consider Claim 8, Filart discloses the system of claim 1, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to:
receive the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include a unique SIP identifier known to the network operator, and wherein the list of allowable SIP identifiers is stored in a cloud storage service, and wherein the SCIF is communicatively coupled to the cloud storage service. (Column 8 lines 26-33, a determination and mitigation of a spoof communication may be performed by a spoof mitigation module of a SIP server associated with an HPLMN. variations and modifications can be made such that the spoof mitigation module may be remotely executable on a separate server or a separate computing device that is communicatively coupled to the SIP server(see fig. 1)).
Consider Claim 9, Filart discloses a system of a telecommunications network, the system comprising: an interconnect session border controller (I-SBC) configured as a network element disposed at a border between the telecommunications network and peer telecommunications networks, the I-SBC including:
at least one network interface; (Column 4 lines 37-20, the SIP server 126 may include input/output interface(s) 202. The input/output interface(s) 202 may include any type of output interface known in the art).
at least one hardware processor; and (column 24, the SIP server 126 may include one or more processor(s) 206 that are operably connected to memory 208).
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions, which, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the I-SBC to: (Column 5 lines 21-26, the memory 208 may further include non-transitory computer-readable media, such as volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data).
receive an inbound call over the at least one network interface, wherein the inbound call is associated with an IP address; (Column 4 lines 24-34, the spoof mitigation module 102 may be configured to determine whether an incoming VoIP communication request is a spoof communication. The SIP server 126 is configured to detect receipt of a SIP INVITE message and further determine whether the PLMN identified within the most recent instance of registration data of an originating device corresponds with the origin network from which the SIP INVITE message was sent. The origin network may be identified within the SIP INVITE message. A match would indicate that the identity of the originating device is likely reliable; Column 5 lines 58-60 the identity verification component 214 may identify an IP address within the SIP INVITE message).
receive an indication from the SCIF, that the inbound call is an illegitimate call, wherein an illegitimate call is one which is received by the I-SBC from an IP address that does not match any IP address on the list of allowable IP addresses; and (column 9 lines 27-34, if the most recent instance of registration data indicates that the originating device is within a first PLMN (i.e. HPLMN or VPLMN), and the origin network identified within the SIP INVITE message indicates that the originating device is within a second PLMN that is different from the first PLMN (i.e. VPLMN or HPLMN), the mismatch may indicate that the identity of the originating device may be spoofed, and is likely unreliable).
reject the illegitimate call by not forwarding it to a telecommunications network. (Column 7 lines 49-56, the spoof mitigation component 220 may selectively terminate the call request for the VoIP communication based on an inference that the call request is associated with a spoof communication. the spoof mitigation component 220 may reply to the SIP INVITE message with a “not accepted” response, which similarly prevents the VoIP communication session from being established).
Filart discloses the claim invention but fails to teach send the IP address to a Spoofed Call Identification Function (SCIF) of the telecommunications network;
However, Phan-Anh teaches send the IP address to a Spoofed Call Identification Function (SCIF) of the telecommunications network (paragraph 0016, the attacker first sends a registration request with a spoofed SIP identity and a spoofed IP address (IP: Internet protocol) to a proxy server P-CSCF. The P-CSCF performs standard SIP processing of the request, including checking the "sent-by" parameter. Then, also as part of generic signaling procedure, the P-CSCF will forward the request toward a session control server S-CSCF via I-CSCF).
Phan-Anh teaches based on a comparison of the IP address of the inbound call performed by the SCIF against a list of allowable IP addresses.. (paragraph 0085, a parameter such as "IP=not-dependable" to the P-Access-Network-Info header to indicate that the IP address used by the user (i.e. user equipment) cannot be trusted for authentication purposes, namely when a registration request has been received at the proxy server over an access network being categorized as "IP-not-dependable" (i.e. "not-trusted" and/or "shared"). At a receiving session control server, there exists a configuration parameter (list) in order to decide whether the content of the received P-Access-Network-Info is trustable or not based on the fact which proxy server has handled the request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 1, by incorporating Filart migration of spoof communication within a telecommunication network with the authentication of a user of a communication system includes a proxy server interfacing with a plurality of access networks of Phan-Anh. The motivation to do so would be develop the continual growth and advancement of mobile device technology for a call request from an originating device in a telecommunication system. Thereby, providing a viable and reliable authentication of the user in the communication system supporting multiple authentication schemes in a wireless communication systems.
Consider Claim 10, Filart discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the inbound call is a first inbound call, and wherein the system is further caused to: receive a second inbound call whose IP address matches at least one IP address on the list of allowable IP addresses; cause the I-SBC to identify the second inbound call as a legitimate call; and admit the call by forwarding it to a telecommunications network. (Column 12 lines 6-13, the SIP server may determine that the spoof-likelihood score is less than the first predetermined spoof threshold and the second predetermined spoof threshold. In this instance, the spoof-likelihood score is a low spoof-likelihood score, the SIP server may infer that the identity of the originating device is likely reliable. In doing so, the SIP server may transmit the SIP INVITE message to the recipient device to facilitate establishing the VoIP communication session between the originating device and the recipient device).
Consider Claim 11, Filart discloses the system of claim 10 further caused to: upon receiving a legitimate call, cause the I-SBC to forward the second inbound call to an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) of the telecommunications network. (Column 4 lines 16-21, a gateway 138 may interface with the IMS core 112 and the LTE core 108. The gateway 138 may include one or more servers and related components that are tasked with providing connectivity between the IMS core 112, the LTE core 108, the client device(s) 110(1)-110(N), and the internet 140. More specifically, the gateway 138 may act as a point of entry and exit for network traffic into the telecommunications network 106).
Consider Claim 12, Filart discloses the system of claim 9, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to: receive, by the I-SBC, the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to send calls to the telecommunications network from an IP address that is known to the telecommunications network operator. (Column 4 & 5 lines 66-67 & 1-10, the SIP server 126 may include one or more processor(s) 206 that are operably connected to memory 208. In at least one example, the one or more processor(s) 206 may be a central processing unit(s) (CPU), graphics processing unit(s) (GPU), or both a CPU and GPU or any other sort of processing unit(s). Each of the one or more processor(s) 206 may have numerous arithmetic logic units (ALUs) that perform arithmetic and logical operations as well as one or more control units (CUs) that extract instructions and stored content from processor cache memory, and then execute these instructions by calling on the ALUs, as necessary during program execution).
Consider Claim 13, Filart discloses the system of claim 9, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to: receive, by the I-SBC, the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to send calls to the telecommunications network from an IP address that is known to the telecommunications network operator, and wherein the list of allowable IP addresses is stored in the I-SBC. (Column 9 & 10 lines 62-67 & 1-5, at 314, the SIP server may determine that the PLMN identified within the most recent instance of registration data within the HPLMN matches the origin network, the origin network having been identified as the network from which the SIP INVITE was sent, or the network identified within the SIP INVITE message. In this instance, the SIP server may infer that the identity of the originating device is likely reliable. In doing so, the SIP server may transmit the SIP INVITE message to the recipient device to facilitate establishing the VoIP communication session between the originating device and the recipient device).
Consider Claim 14, Filart discloses the system of claim 9, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to: receive, by the I-SBC, the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to send calls to the telecommunications network from an IP address that is known to the telecommunications network operator, and wherein the list of allowable IP addresses is stored in a cloud storage service, and wherein the cloud storage service is communicatively coupled with the I-SBC. (Column 8 lines 26-33, fig. 3 illustrates a process for determining whether an incoming VoIP communication request is a spoof communication. A determination and mitigation of a spoof communication may be performed by a spoof mitigation module of a SIP server associated with an HPLMN. In this example, the spoof mitigation module is included within the SIP server. However, variations and modifications can be made such that the spoof mitigation module may be remotely executable on a separate server or a separate computing device that is communicatively coupled to the SIP server).
Consider Claim 15, Filart discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium to cause a system of a telecommunications network comprising an interconnect session border controller (I-SBC) having at least one network interface to:
receive an inbound call over the at least one network interface of the I-SBC, wherein a unique call attribute known to a network operator of the telecommunications network is associated with the inbound call; (Column 4 lines 54-57, the network interface(s) 204 may include a radio transceiver that performs the function of transmitting and receiving radio frequency communications via an antenna).
wherein the unique call attribute comprises one or more of a session initiation protocol (SIP) identifier, an internet protocol (IP) address, or a phone number associated with the inbound call; (Column 12 lines 11-14 & 17-22, the SIP server may selectively generate a likely-spoof tag that is to display on a user-interface of the recipient device. The alert may indicate a likelihood that the VoIP communication is a spoof communication. The computer-executable instructions may be further configured to establish the VoIP communication session between the originating device and the recipient device and present the likely-spoof tag on a display of the recipient device at the same point-in-time as establishing the VoIP communication session).
receive an indication from the SCIF, that the inbound call’s unique call attribute does not match any unique call attribute on the list of allowable unique call attributes, wherein when the unique call attribute of the inbound call does not match any unique call attribute on the allowable unique call attribute list, the SCIF identifies the inbound call as an illegitimate call; and (column 9 lines 27-34, if the most recent instance of registration data indicates that the originating device is within a first PLMN (i.e. HPLMN or VPLMN), and the origin network identified within the SIP INVITE message indicates that the originating device is within a second PLMN that is different from the first PLMN (i.e. VPLMN or HPLMN), the mismatch may indicate that the identity of the originating device may be spoofed, and is likely unreliable).
reject the call by not forwarding it to a telecommunications network. (Column 7 lines 49-56, the spoof mitigation component 220 may selectively terminate the call request for the VoIP communication based on an inference that the call request is associated with a spoof communication. the spoof mitigation component 220 may reply to the SIP INVITE message with a “not accepted” response, which similarly prevents the VoIP communication session from being established).
Filart discloses the claim invention but fails to teach send the unique call attribute to a Spoofed Call Identification Function (SCIF) of the telecommunications network;
However, Phan-Anh teaches send the unique call attribute to a Spoofed Call Identification Function (SCIF) of the telecommunications network (paragraph 0016, the attacker first sends a registration request with a spoofed SIP identity and a spoofed IP address (IP: Internet protocol) to a proxy server P-CSCF. The P-CSCF performs standard SIP processing of the request, including checking the "sent-by" parameter. Then, also as part of generic signaling procedure, the P-CSCF will forward the request toward a session control server S-CSCF via I-CSCF).
Phan-Anh teaches based on a comparison of the unique call attribute performed by the SCIF against a corresponding list of allowable unique call attributes (paragraph 0085, a parameter such as "IP=not-dependable" to the P-Access-Network-Info header to indicate that the IP address used by the user (i.e. user equipment) cannot be trusted for authentication purposes, namely when a registration request has been received at the proxy server over an access network being categorized as "IP-not-dependable" (i.e. "not-trusted" and/or "shared"). At a receiving session control server, there exists a configuration parameter (list) in order to decide whether the content of the received P-Access-Network-Info is trustable or not based on the fact which proxy server has handled the request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 1, by incorporating Filart migration of spoof communication within a telecommunication network with the authentication of a user of a communication system includes a proxy server interfacing with a plurality of access networks of Phan-Anh. The motivation to do so would be develop the continual growth and advancement of mobile device technology for a call request from an originating device in a telecommunication system. Thereby, providing a viable and reliable authentication of the user in the communication system supporting multiple authentication schemes in a wireless communication systems.
Consider Claim 16, Filart discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein when the I-SBC receives an inbound call whose unique call attribute matches at least one unique call attribute on the list of allowable unique call attributes, the system is further caused to: determine, by the SCIF, the inbound call as a legitimate call; cause the SCIF to admit the call by forwarding it to a telecommunications network. (Column 3 lines 27-33, the IBCF 124 is a network element deployed to protect the telecommunications network 106. The IBCF 124 may provide the telecommunications network 106 with measurements, access control, and data conversion facilities of communications received that the network edge. Column 16, the SIP server 126 may correspond to one of the I-CSCF 118 or the S-CSCF 120. In other examples, the SIP server 126 may be separate and communicatively coupled to the I-CSCF 118 or S-CSCF 120).
Consider Claim 17, Filart discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein at least one network interface of the I-SBC is connected to an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network, and wherein the system is further caused to: upon determination by the SCIF that the inbound call is legitimate, cause the SCIF to forward the call to the IMS network. (Column 4 lines 16-21, a gateway 138 may interface with the IMS core 112 and the LTE core 108. The gateway 138 may include one or more servers and related components that are tasked with providing connectivity between the IMS core 112, the LTE core 108, the client device(s) 110(1)-110(N), and the internet 140. More specifically, the gateway 138 may act as a point of entry and exit for network traffic into the telecommunications network 106).
Consider Claim 18, Filart discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to: receive, by the I-SBC, the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of the telecommunications network operator, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include the unique call attribute in the inbound call. (Column 3 lines 27-33, the IBCF 124 is a network element deployed to protect the telecommunications network 106. The IBCF 124 may provide the telecommunications network 106 with measurements, access control, and data conversion facilities of communications received that the network edge. Column 16, the SIP server 126 may correspond to one of the I-CSCF 118 or the S-CSCF 120. In other examples, the SIP server 126 may be separate and communicatively coupled to the I-CSCF 118 or S-CSCF 120).
Consider Claim 19, Filart discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to: receive, by the I-SBC, the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include the unique call attribute in the inbound call, and wherein the unique call attribute is a SIP identifier. (Column 4 & 5 lines 66-67 & 1-10, the SIP server 126 may include one or more processor(s) 206 that are operably connected to memory 208. In at least one example, the one or more processor(s) 206 may be a central processing unit(s) (CPU), graphics processing unit(s) (GPU), or both a CPU and GPU or any other sort of processing unit(s). Each of the one or more processor(s) 206 may have numerous arithmetic logic units (ALUs) that perform arithmetic and logical operations as well as one or more control units (CUs) that extract instructions and stored content from processor cache memory, and then execute these instructions by calling on the ALUs, as necessary during program execution).
Consider Claim 20, Filart discloses the non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein to receive the inbound call over the at least one network interface comprises further causing the system to:
receive, by the I-SBC, the inbound call from an enterprise services partner of a network operator of the telecommunications network, wherein the enterprise services partner is configured to include the unique call attribute in the inbound call, and wherein the unique call attribute is an IP address. (Column 3 lines 3-14, the IMS core 112 may include application function(s) (AF) 114, such as a Proxy Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) 116, an Interrogating Call Session Control Function (I-CSCF) 118, and a Serving Call Session Control Function (S-CSCF) 120, a Telephony Application Server (TAS) 122, an Interconnection Border Control Function (IBCF) 124, and a SIP server 126. The P-CSCF 116 behaves like a proxy by accepting requests and serving them internally or forwarding them towards to the I-CSCF 118 and S-CSCF 120. The S-CSCF 120 acts as a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) registrar and in some cases as a SIP redirect server(see fig.1)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed June 8, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 15 have been fully considered.
In view of Applicants arguments (page 11 and 12) of the amended claims and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the amendments is made in view of newly cited reference Phan-Anh as presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims are therefore moot."
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 5:00 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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights