DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
No domestic benefit or foreign priority is asserted. As a result, this Application has an effective filing date of 28 Mar 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims 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. In particular, Qiao is now cited for teaching an HSS providing an identifier of a user to a P-CSCF.
The other cited art on the PTO-892, Al-Medhar, is not used in the obviousness rejections below. However, it teaches an HSS providing the priority [i.e. service level] of a user to a P-CSCF. Al-Mehdar, ¶14. The message providing the priority (answer 206) may include an identifier of the UE 102. Al-Mehdar, ¶30.
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, 2, 6-7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Sabeur (US 20230062145) in view Qiao (US 20190313319).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Sabeur teaches a method, a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) node comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Sabeur, figure 4 and ¶73 – elements of a P-CSCF), and a system comprising:
a home subscriber server (HSS) (Sabeur, figures 1 and 2 – HSS 120); and
a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) node (Sabeur, figures 1 and 2 – P-CSCF 114) executing the method comprising:
receiving, at a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) node, an indication that the P-CSCF node has been assigned to a user equipment (UE) (Sabeur, figure 2, step 208 and ¶60 – figure 2 shows the IMS registration process that results in UE 102 being “assigned” with P-CSCF 114 and during the process, P-CSCF receives a registration response from S-CSCF 116);
obtaining, by the P-CSCF node from a Home Subscriber Server (HSS), information related to the UE (Sabeur, figure 2, steps 204-208 and ¶59 – P-CSCF receives subscriber information from HSS 120);
storing, by the P-CSCF node, the information related to the UE in a local repository (Sabeur, ¶60 – P-CSCF caches the slice identifier, MSISDN, and IMSI of the UE);
receiving, by the P-CSCF node, a communication relating to a service to be provided to the UE (Sabeur, figure 3 (step 302) and ¶67 – after being registered, the UE can engage in services via the IMS via a SIP Invite message 302);
making, by the P-CSCF node, a determination about the service to be provided to the UE based on the information related to the UE (Sabeur, ¶88 – IMS element may be a P-CSCF; Sabeur, figure 7 and e.g. ¶¶91-92 – based on whether the network slices are configured to provide the requested service, the IMS element either begins performing operations associated with the requested services or redirects the UE to a different network slice or instance that can provide the requested service; see also id., ¶57 – slice that the UE is “allowed to use”); and
routing, by the P-CSCF node, a message to an electronic device based on the determination about the service to be provided. Sabeur, ¶87 (P-CSCF forwards SIP invite message to application server 118 for the type of service or operations requested by the UE).
Sabeur does not explicitly teach “wherein the information related to the UE includes at least one of a UE identifier, a subscriber identifier, a UE capability, or a service level.” However, Qiao teaches an HSS providing the MSISDN of a UE. Qiao, ¶94. The MSISDN is requested by the P-CSCF. Id. at ¶95. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the P-CSCF, as taught by Sabeur, to receive an identifier of a user from an HSS, as taught by Qiao, in order to allow a user access to local operator services. Id. at ¶93.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the indication that the P-CSCF node has been assigned to the UE is received when the UE is registered with an IMS network. Sabeur, figure 2 (in step 208, the P-CSCF receives a registration response during the registration process [i.e. as a result of being registered with the IMS 106 in figure 1, the UE 102 is assigned to P-CSCF 114 of IMS 106]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the determination about the service to be provided to the UE is made based on a service level agreement (SLA) associated with an account for the UE. Sabeur, ¶¶94, 96 (KPIs of the services provided by the network slice are defined in an SLA of the UE).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the determination about the service to be provided to the UE is made based on metrics obtained in relation to the service to be provided to the UE and quality of service (QOS) requirements indicated in the SLA. Sabeur, ¶¶28-29 (slices need to meet QoS requirements of the SLA).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the information related to the UE is provided by the HSS to the P-CSCF node via an assigned service call session control function (S-CSCF) node. Sabeur, figure 2 (S-CSCF 116 relays slice ID 112 from HSS 120 to P-CSCF 114).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the communication relating to the service to be provided to the UE is received from the UE and is directed to an application server. Sabeur, figure 3 and ¶67 (after being registered, the UE can engage in services via the IMS via a SIP Invite message 302 that is ultimately received by AS 118).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches a determination to provide the service and routing the message to the electronic device comprises sending the communication to a next hop associated with the service. Sabeur, figure 2 and ¶87 (P-CSCF forwards SIP invite message to the next hop [S-CSCF 116] with an ultimate destination of the application server 118 for the type of service or operations requested by the UE).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the determination about the service to be provided to the UE is made without any additional communication between the HSS and the P-CSCF node. Sabeur, figures 2 and 3 show the only signaling between P-CSCF 114 and AS 118.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the communication comprises a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) request. Sabeur, figure 3 and ¶67 (SIP Invite message 302 is a request for services).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the system further comprises a service call session control function (S-CSCF) node configured to relay the information related to the UE from the HSS to the P-CSCF node. Sabeur, figure 2 (S-CSCF 116 relays slice ID 112 from HSS 120 to P-CSCF 114).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao also teaches wherein the P-CSCF node is assigned to the UE when the UE is registered on a network in which the P-CSCF node is operating. Sabeur, figure 1 and ¶60 – During IMS registration process of figure 2, UE 102 is “assigned” with P-CSCF 114 of IMS 106).
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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabeur in view of Qiao (both of record) and further in view of Narkar (US 20160249313).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the determination about the service to be provided to the UE is made based on one or more capabilities determined to be associated with the UE.” However, Narkar teaches an IMS with a capability database. Narkar, ¶37. The capability database includes software capabilities of the terminal device, where are used to provide location-based services or other types of services to the terminal device. Id. at ¶¶39-40 (e.g. sufficient hardware/software capability for a gaming application). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the capability database, taught by Narkar, when determining whether to provide a service to a terminal device, as taught by the combination of Sabeur and Qiao, in order to enable the IMS to intelligently provision services to the terminal device. Narkar, ¶¶3, 55.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sabeur, Qiao, and Narkar also teaches wherein the information related to the UE comprises at least a unique identifier for the UE (Narkar, ¶41 – IMEI or IMSI may be used in capability database; Qiao, ¶94 – MSISDN is a unique ID of the user), and the one or more capabilities are determined to be associated with the UE based on the unique identifier. Narkar, ¶41 and figure 3 (IMEI is associated with a row of hardware/software capabilities of the UE).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Sabeur, Qiao, and Narkar also teaches wherein the unique identifier comprises one of an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) or an International Mobile Equipment Identifier (IMEI). Narkar, abstract and ¶41 (IMEI or IMSI may be used in capability database).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabeur in view of Qiao (both of record) and further in view of Iglesias (US 20220166695).
Regarding claim 8, Sabeur teaches the method of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the QOS requirements include an indication of one or more thresholds associated with the metrics obtained in relation to the service.” However, Iglesias detects a failover by monitoring latency thresholds. Iglesias, ¶47. The SLA may define the maximum latency threshold for particular virtual network functions. Id. at ¶¶25, 47. The latency threshold and other KPIs indicate a service degradation. Id. at ¶20. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to monitor QoS metrics, as taught by Iglesias, when providing a service to a terminal device, as taught by the combination of Sabeur and Qiao, in order to ensure compliance with the SLA. Id. at ¶25.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabeur in view of Qiao (both of record) in view of Paczkowski (US 9043928).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao teaches the P-CSCF node of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the communication relating to the service to be provided to the UE is received from an application server and is directed to the UE.” Instead, Sabeur teaches a UE providing the claimed communication instead of an application server. However, Paczkowski teaches an application server providing a mobile device with a communication related to a service for the mobile device. Paczkowski, figure 3 (message 340) and 6:56-66. Specifically, after registering with the access network, instead of the UE sending the first transmission initiating service from the AS, the AS of Paczkowski sends the initial transmission soliciting a request from the mobile device. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the application server, taught by the combination of Sabeur and Qiao, to provide a SIP subscribe message to the mobile device, as taught by Paczkowski, in order to notify the mobile device to send a service request.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao teaches the P-CSCF node of claim 10, wherein the determination comprises a determination to block the service the message comprises a rejection (Sabeur, ¶91 and figure 7, step 706 – IMS element, such as P-CSCF, finds slice identifier does not correspond to the network slice that the IMS element is configured to provide services, the IMS element re-redirects the UE to a different slice [i.e. rejects the UE from using the IMS element’s slice]).
Sabeur does not explicitly teach “the electronic device comprises a device from which the communication was received.” Instead, in Sabeur, a P-CSCF routes a SIP invite message to application server 118 for the type of service or operations requested by the UE. Sabeur, ¶87. Claim 13 would appear to require Sabeur to route a SIP message to the mobile device instead of the application server. However, Paczkowski teaches an application server routing a SIP message to a mobile device, wherein the message is related to a service for the mobile device. Paczkowski, figure 3 (message 340) and 6:56-66. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the application server, taught by the combination of Sabeur and Qiao, to provide a SIP subscribe message to the mobile device, as taught by Paczkowski, in order to notify the mobile device to send a service request.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabeur in view of Qiao (both of record), and further in view of Mufti (US 20190059024).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sabeur and Qiao teaches the P-CSCF node of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the determination about the service to be provided to the UE is made based on an availability of the service in a geographic region with which the UE is associated.” However, Mufti teaches a P-CSCF that determines if the service requested by the terminal is supported by its access network based on the location information answer. Mufti, ¶¶99, 103 (NPLI or LIA is used to determine if service or SRVCC is supported). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use location or access network of the terminal, as taught by Mufti, when determining whether to provide services to the terminal, as taught by the combination of Sabeur and Qiao, in order to control which services are allowed based on the location of the terminal, which prevents wasting network resources. Mufti, ¶¶18-19.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights