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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 teaches “the attestation of the caller identity”, claim 8 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 does not teach any “attestation” or “caller identity”, these limitations were disclosed in claims 6 or 7.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-12, 14, 16, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuoppamaki (US 20250113170) in view of Bianconi (US 20220131907).
Regarding claim 1, Kuoppamaki teaches, a method (abstract: Methods and systems are disclosed herein for reprioritizing messages received at a short message service center (SMSC). The system maintains a queue of messages with prioritization. The system receives a first message transmission request. The system determines that the message transmission request contains a prioritization indicator. When the first message transmission request contains the first prioritization indicator, the system adds the first message to the queue at a higher rank than at least a subset of other messages in the queue that were received at the SMSC before the first message), comprising:
receiving, by telecommunications network that includes short message service center (SMSC) and a call session control function (CSCF) (Paragraph 40: an SIP signaling path of a communication session can pass from the terminal 242 through eNodeB 202, GW 204, P-CSCF/ATCF 218, S-CSCF 220) and from a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, el. 242 and Paragraph 40), a message associated with a text message sent from the UE to an emergency number (Paragraph 39, 47, Fig. 3);
adding, based on the message being associated with the text message sent to the emergency number, an enhanced 911 (e911) attribute to the message, wherein the e911 attribute provides prioritized handling for the message during network congestion in relation to messages without the e911 attribute (Fig. 3 and Paragraph 42-43, 46-48: the message transmission request 302 at an SMSC associated with the telecommunications network 200. Receiving or determining the timestamp 310 enables the message prioritization system to determine an order (e.g., within a message queue associated with the SMSC 240) for satisfaction of the message transmission request, thereby enabling prioritization of messages according to time of submission or receipt); and
transmitting, the message having the e911 attribute (Paragraph 51: the message transmission system enables a recipient of the message to obtain information relating to the location of the sender, thereby improving the efficiency of dispatching emergency services to the sender in situations of distress or emergency and Paragraph 65: messages of users attempting to contact loved ones or emergency services all at once and Paragraph 70: indicated by the user's message transmission request. For example, the message modification criterion 602 can determine to send a message or initiate a phone call to an emergency service (e.g., 911) if the sender's message transmission request indicates an apparent recipient that is different).
Kuoppamaki teaches that the UE uses the telecommunications network that includes CSCF nodes, to establish the connection with the emergency service (Paragraph 40).
Kuoppamaki does not explicitly teach that the CSCF specifically receive the message and add the priority as claimed.
Bianconi in the same art endeavor teaches managing emergency services (abstract), Bianconi teaches the above missing limitation (abstract: method of call handling when multiple namespaces are present for a call of a priority or emergency call type initiated by a subscriber of a wireless network includes: obtaining, by an originating Proxy Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF), a predetermined precedence order for the multiple namespaces; retrieving, by the originating P-CSCF, each namespace and associated priority from the subscriber's Registration Context; inserting, by the originating P-CSCF, a SIP Resource-Priority header for each namespace and associated priority; and inserting, by the originating P-CSCF, an additional SIP Resource-Priority header with an additional specified namespace (Multiple Namespace Precedence Order (MNPO)) and priority value identifying the predetermined precedence order for the multiple namespaces. The originating P-CSCF uses the namespace with the highest precedence order to select the appropriate values to fill in Reservation-Priority Attribute-Value Pair (AVP) and Multimedia-priority services (MPS) Identifier AVP in Rx interface signaling to a Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuoppamaki with Bianconi in order to improve the system by having CSCF to manage the call so to enhanced security, improved interoperability, and better quality of service (QoS). CSCFs provide a secure boundary, protect against attacks, manage traffic for better call quality, and enable different systems to communicate with each other reliably.
Regarding claim 2, Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi teaches, wherein the message is a session initiation protocol (SIP) message, and the e911 attribute is a resource priority header (RPH) with an emergency services network (esnet) namespace (Bianconi: abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi teaches, wherein transmitting the message having the e911 attribute comprises transmitting the message to a short messaging service application server (SMS-AS) (Kuoppamaki Paragraph 40: application server and SMS).
Regarding claim 5, Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi teaches, receiving, by the CSCF, a delivery acknowledgement or report indicating the e911 attribute (Kuoppamaki Paragraph 47: The message transmission request 302 can include a prioritization flag 314 that indicates a priority for the message).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 1 rejection, network element reads on (CSCF node).
Regarding claim 11, see claim 2 rejections.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 3 rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 5 rejections.
Regarding claim 16, Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi teaches, wherein the network element is a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) (Kuoppamaki: 218,220 and see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 17, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 18, see claim 2 rejections.
Claims 4, 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuoppamaki (US 20250113170) in view of Bianconi (US 20220131907) in view of Sridhar (US 20200374321).
Regarding claim 4, Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi teaches, wherein transmitting the message having the e911 attribute comprises transmitting the message to serve (Kuoppamaki: Paragraph
Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi does not teach a rich communication service application server (RCS-AS) as claimed.
Sridhar in the same art of endeavor teaches (Paragraph 33: telecommunications network 102 may include IP-SIP server(s), an emergency CSCF (E-CSCF) node to enable the provisioning of emergency services (e.g., E911), in call session control function (CSCF) nodes, transmitting message) also teaches a rich communication service application server (RCS-AS) (Paragraph 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuoppamaki with Bianconi with Sridhar in order to improve the system and enhanced user experience through rich media and interactive features, improved security via encryption, and greater business opportunities like brand verification and analytics. It provides a more engaging and functional messaging experience without requiring app downloads, by bringing features from over-the-top (OTT) messaging apps to standard SMS/MMS channels.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 4 rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 4 rejections.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuoppamaki (US 20250113170) in view of Bianconi (US 20220131907) in view of Filart (US 20230370851).
Regarding claim 8, Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi teaches, the claimed method.
Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi does not teach wherein the attestation of the caller identity and the e911 attribute is based on a secure telephone identity revisited / signature-based handling of asserted information using tokens (STIR/SHAKEN) framework.
Filart teaches enhanced selective attestation of wireless communications (abstract), wherein the attestation of the caller identity and the e911 attribute is based on a secure telephone identity revisited / signature-based handling of asserted information using tokens (STIR/SHAKEN) framework (Paragraph 80, 100: telecommunication network 108 is part of a STIR/SHAKEN framework (e.g., based at least in part on the AOCN or OCN of the destination network). STIR/SHAKEN, for example, is a framework of interconnected standards. The STIR/SHAKEN acronyms are for the Secure Telephone Identity Revisited and Signature-based Handling of Asserted Information Using toKENs standards. STIR/SHAKEN frameworks provide for calls traveling through interconnected phone networks to have their caller ID “signed” as legitimate by one or more originating carriers and validated by other carriers before reaching a destination computing device. For example, the STIR/SHAKEN framework digitally validates a handoff of a phone call passing through a complex web of networks, allowing the provider of the destination computing device to verify that the phone call is in fact from the telephone number associated with the transmitting computing device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kuoppamaki in view of Bianconi with Filart in order to improve the system by using STIR/SHAKEN framework as claimed to combat caller ID spoofing, which increases consumer trust in phone calls and improves businesses' call answer rates. By digitally verifying the caller's identity, the framework helps ensure legitimate calls are not mislabeled as spam, while also making it harder for criminals to impersonate brands or trick consumers through spoofed numbers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 9, 15, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692