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 § 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 7 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 7 recites in part …wherein the pre-determined amount of time is about three seconds. The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christopher et al (2020/0153874 A1).
As per Claim 1, Christopher teaches a method comprising: a first user equipment device (UE) performing an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) registration in a cellular telecommunications network on a first Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) of the cellular telecommunications network (Figure 1 – Reference 120; Page 1, Paragraph [0017] – Page 2, Paragraphs [0020], [0022] and [0026]).
(Note: In paragraph [0017], Christopher describes a circumstance where a P-CSCF is unable to provide service resulting in an inability to provide inbound and outbound voice calling and indicates that a solution to this is to utilize a backup P-CSCF to enable voice calling. In order to perform voice calling within the IMS a UE must be registered for service)
(Note: In paragraph [0018], Christopher describes the transmission of a SIP INVITE to a primary P-CSCF that is not reachable, has failed or is out of service. Christopher indicates a new SIP INVITE message is generated and is sent to a backup P-CSCF and a restoration indicator is added within the SIP INVITE header. In paragraph [0019], Christopher indicates the backup P-CSCF may bypass registration checks [i.e. de-registering from the first P-CSCF without ending an attempt to establish the call and the first UE registering on a second P-CSCF operating at a same generation of mobile network technology standard as the first P-CSCF] based on the restoration indicator in the SIP INVITE header)
(Note: In paragraph [0020], Christopher describes the use of a NOTIFY message that includes reason codes that inform a computing device of the P-CSCF server failure type which may include among other things: a restart reason code or an out of service reason code. Christopher indicates out of service reason codes may include the P-CSCF being out of service, unreachable or has failed)
(Note: It is well known that the 5XX class of HTTP status codes signify server errors where a status code of 500 is a “catch all” indicator of an Internal Server error, a status code of 503 is an indicator of service unavailable, a status code of 502 is an indicator of bad gateway and a status code of 504 is an indicator of a gateway timeout)
Christopher also teaches the first UE sending a first Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) INVITE request to the first P-CSCF thereby initiating a dialog for establishing a call on the cellular telecommunications network with a second UE (Page 5, Paragraphs [0043] – [0045]); in response to sending the first SIP INVITE request, the first UE receiving an error response preventing the call from connecting (Page 5, Paragraphs [0043] – [0045]).
Christopher teaches after the first UE receives the error response: the first UE de-registering from the first P-CSCF without ending an attempt to establish the call; the first UE registering on a second P-CSCF operating at a same generation of mobile network technology standard as the first P-CSCF; and the first UE sending a second SIP INVITE request to the second P-CSCF to initiate the dialog for establishing the same call on the cellular telecommunications network with the second UE (Figure 6 – References 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 71; Page 5, Paragraphs [0046] – [0048]; Page 7, Paragraphs [0059] – [0062]).
As per Claim 2, Christopher teaches wherein the first UE de-registering from the first P-CSCF, the first UE registering on the second P-CSCF and the first UE sending the second SIP INVITE request to the second P-CSCF are performed silently without performing actions that would alert a UE user and while the UE still appears to be initiating the dialog for establishing the same call as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 3, Christopher teaches wherein the first UE de-registering from the first P-CSCF, the first UE registering on the second P-CSCF and the first UE sending the second SIP INVITE request to the second P-CSCF are performed silently while a call screen remains active on the UE indicating a call is currently being attempted as described in Claim 1. (Note: In paragraph [0035], Christopher described a television call notification service which the Examiner is considering as reading on a call screen remaining active on the UE indicating a call is currently being attempted)
As per Claim 4, Christopher teaches wherein the first UE de-registering from the first P-CSCF, the first UE registering on the second P-CSCF and the first UE sending the second SIP INVITE request to the second P-CSCF are performed immediately in response to first UE receiving the error response as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 5, Christopher teaches wherein the first UE de-registering from the first P-CSCF, the first UE registering on the second P-CSCF and the first UE sending the second SIP INVITE request to the second P-CSCF are performed in response to the first UE receiving the error response and the error response not indicating to re-try establishing the call through the first P-CSCF as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 8, Christopher teaches wherein the error response is Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 500 series internal server error response as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 9, Christopher teaches in response to the first UE sending a second SIP INVITE request to the second P-CSCF, the call with the second UE being successfully established on the second P-CSCF as described in Claim 1.
As per Claim 16, Christopher teaches wherein the second P-CSCF is provided to the UE via broadcasting of an IP address of the second P-CSCF before the performing of the registration as a fallback alternative to the first P-CSCF during making a call such that the second P-CSCF is in a different geographical location within a same IMS region as the first P-CSCF as described in Claim 1.
(Note: In paragraph [0028], Christopher describes a plurality of P-CSCFs even though only two are shown in Figure 1. Christoper indicates each P-CSCF server may be assigned to a device prior to device registration with the IMS and/or at some other time. Christoper also indicates that the registration may or may not need to change. Christopher points out this assignment was also be based on geography providing an example of a user in a western part of a serviced region may register to a west region-based P-CSCF server)
As per Claim 17, Christopher teaches wherein the error response is caused by an issue in a region of the first P-CSCF as described in Claims 1 and 16 above.
As per Claim 19, Christopher teaches wherein the call on the cellular telecommunications network is a Voice over New Radio (VoNR) call as described in Claim 1. (Note: In paragraph [0022], Christopher indicates that the access network may include eNB and/or gNB. gNB are base stations for 5G NR networks, where in 5G, gNB provides high speed low latency connectivity. In paragraph [0026], Chistopher indicates that the access network may be 5G as well. Voice communications taking place via gNB base stations in a 5G network allows for the recitations of the claim to be met)
As per Claim 20, Christopher teaches wherein the generation of mobile network technology standard is 5G NR (Page 2, Paragraph [0022] and [0026]). (Note: In paragraph [0022], Christopher indicates that the access network may include eNB and/or gNB. gNB are base stations for 5G NR networks, where in 5G, gNB provides high speed low latency connectivity. In paragraph [0026], Chistopher indicates that the access network may be 5G as well)
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) 6, 7, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher et al (2020/0153874 A1) in view of Alam (2018/0176876 A1).
As per Claim 6 and 7, Christopher teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach waiting a pre-determined amount of time to allow time for the UE to de-register from the first P-CSCF and register on the second P-CSCF before sending the second SIP INVITE request. However, Alam teaches waiting a pre-determined amount of time to allow time for the UE to de-register from the first P-CSCF and register on the second P-CSCF before sending the second SIP INVITE request (Page 11, Paragraph [0115]).
(Note: As described above, Christopher teaches the method of Claim 1. In paragraph [0115], Alam describes a predetermined timeout period [i.e. pre-determined amount of time] to wait for a reply. Alam indicates that the predetermined period may be about, less than about, or greater than about any of the following 1ms, 2 ms, 5 ms, 10 ms, or 50 ms)
The combination of Christopher and Alam teaches wherein the pre-determined amount of time is about three seconds. (Note: In the United States, a single ring cycles is 6 seconds [2 seconds on and 4 seconds off] and when experiencing call setup delays [i.e. during periods of high call volume] it may take between 6 to 10 seconds for a call to begin ringing. Assuming 6 seconds to be a quality of service [QoS] floor a three second wait time is reasonable [i.e. 3 seconds for the primary P-CSCF and 3 seconds for any subsequent P-CSCF])
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 Christopher with the method taught by Alam to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss. A waiting period ensures that the failure is permanent before instancing costly re-registration processes.
As per Claim 10, the combination of Christopher and Alam teaches the UE remaining registered on the second P-CSCF after the call is ended until a next IMS registration is triggered either by the cellular telecommunications network or as a result of user input to the UE. (Note: As the objective is to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss it would be obvious to allow the UE to maintain its current registration status)
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 Christopher with the method taught by Alam to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss. A waiting period ensures that the failure is permanent before instancing costly re-registration processes.
As per Claim 12, the combination of Christopher and Alam teaches before performing the IMS registration on the first P-CSCF, the UE receiving an Internet Protocol (IP) address for the first P-CSCF and second P-CSCF, wherein the registration on the first P-CSCF is performed using the IP address of the first P-CSCF and the registration on the second P-CSCF is performed using the IP address of the second P-CSCF as described in Claim 1.
(Note: In paragraph [0017], Christopher indicates that a backup P-CSCF may be preconfigured in a S-CSCF server and/or an application server. It is found to be obvious that as part of a pre-configuration process that the IP addresses of all P-CSCF’s to be utilized would be included as part of the pre-configuration procedure)
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 Christopher with the method taught by Alam to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss. A waiting period ensures that the failure is permanent before instancing costly re-registration processes.
As per Claim 13, the combination of Christopher and Alam teaches in response to sending the second SIP INVITE request, the first UE receiving an additional error response preventing the call from connecting; and in response to receiving the additional error response, the UE ending the dialog for establishing the call and ceasing to attempt to establish the call as described in Claim 1.
(Note: As described above, in the United States, a single ring cycles is 6 seconds [2 seconds on and 4 seconds off] and when experiencing call setup delays [i.e. during periods of high call volume] it may take between 6 to 10 seconds for a call to begin ringing. The fact that there are multiple instances of P-CSCF’s not responding is an indication of a larger system wide issue and rather than continuously tie up resources which potentially add to network congestion it would be obvious to terminate the call to reduce the load on P-CSCFs and lessen network congestion)
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 Christopher with the method taught by Alam to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss. A waiting period ensures that the failure is permanent before instancing costly re-registration processes.
As per Claim 14, the combination of Christopher and Alam teaches in response to sending the second SIP INVITE request, the first UE receiving an additional error response preventing the call from connecting; and in response to receiving the additional error response, cycling through a process including: de-registering from a P-CSCF on which the UE is currently registered; then registering on an additional alternative P-CSCF, the IP address of which had been previously broadcast to the UE prior to the registration on the first P-CSCF; and then sending an additional SIP INVITE request to the P-CSCF on which the UE is currently registered, until either: the call is successfully established on a P-CSCF the UE is currently registered on; or there are no additional alternative P-CSCFs that were made available to the UE via broadcast of respective P-CSCF IP addresses, whichever occurs first.
(Note: In this case having determined that the error condition is not based on a transient network issue such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss and having waited an applicable predetermined waiting period to ensure that the failure is permanent. It is then logical to perform a re-registration process and seek out alternative P-CSCFs to establish the communication until all available P-CSCFs are exhausted)
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 Christopher with the method taught by Alam to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss. A waiting period ensures that the failure is permanent before instancing costly re-registration processes.
As per Claim 15, the combination of Christopher and Alam teaches in response to receiving a subsequent error response after sending the additional SIP INVITE request to the additional alternative P-CSCF and there being no additional alternative P-CSCFs that were made available to the UE: the UE ending the dialog for establishing the call and ceasing to attempt to establish the call. (Note: It would be obvious to cease attempting to establish a call once all available P-CSCFs have been exhausted rather than just add to network congestion with call setup messaging that cannot establish communication)
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 Christopher with the method taught by Alam to prevent user equipment from frequently switching between P-CSCFs due to transient network issues such as temporary congestion or momentary signal loss. A waiting period ensures that the failure is permanent before instancing costly re-registration processes.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher et al (2020/0153874 A1) in view of Zhang (2024/0015604 A1).
As per Claim 11, Christopher teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach wherein the first UE receives the error response from a Fifth Generation New Radio (5G NR) standalone (SA) network core. However, Zhang teaches wherein the first UE receives the error response from a Fifth Generation New Radio (5G NR) standalone (SA) network core (Page 6, Paragraphs [0131] and [0140]; Page 11, Paragraph [0235]; Page 12, Paragraph [0247]; Page 13, Paragraph [0264]).
(Note: In paragraph [0102], Zhang indicates that Figure 1 is an illustration of a process by which a calling UE contacts a called UE and both UEs reside in a 5G NR SA network. In paragraphs [0131] and [0140], Zhang describes the called UE receiving a cancel message sent by the network with the reason given error code 503 – service unavailable)
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 Christopher with the method taught by Zhang to provide on-demand scaling of IMS microservices, rapid deployment and reduced operational complexity while strengthening security using advanced features like IMSI encryption which protects IMS communication better than older architectures.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christopher et al (2020/0153874 A1) in view of NAIK (2022/0116750 A1).
As per Claim 18, Christopher teaches the method of Claim 1; but does not teach the cellular telecommunications network is a 5G standalone (SA) cellular network including a 5G NR SA network core that is implemented entirely in one or more cloud computing servers. However, Naik teaches the cellular telecommunications network is a 5G standalone (SA) cellular network including a 5G NR SA network core that is implemented entirely in one or more cloud computing servers (Page 2, Paragraph [0032]).
The combination of Christopher and Naik teaches the first P-CSCF is part of an IMS layer of the 5G NR SA network core and is configured to enable the UE to communicate using the 5G NR SA cellular network; and the second P-CSCF is part of the IMS layer of the 5G NR SA network core and is configured to enable the UE to communicate using the 5G SA cellular network.
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 Christopher with the method taught by Naik to leverage the ability of 5G SA networks to enhance spectral efficiency and reduce power consumption while supporting a greater capacity for massive machine-type communications [i.e. Internet of Things] alongside voice services.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kalepu et al (2018/0132291 A1), Torres et al (2008/0182575 A1), Heidermark et al (8,059,633 B2), LIAO et al (2018/0278659 A1), Lu et al (2021/0377817 A1), QIU et al (2012/0113796 A1) and Rahman (2025/0088548 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods for routing of communication and the providing of value-added services in the IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS).
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