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 .
General Remarks
This communication is considered fully responsive to Applicant’s application filed 03/28/2024.
Application filed: 03/24/2024
Applicant’s PgPUB: 2025/0310386
Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, it claims in part, that an application server receives a request for a service to initiated in relation to a user equipment. However, the claims fails to state where the request originated. The claim states later that the application server corresponds with a second computing device, however, there is no mention of a first computing device. For the purpose of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the request originating from the UE. Also, Examiner will interpret “second” to be a label and not an assumption that a first computing device should exist. Examiner requires amendment/clarification to avoid future confusion.
As to claims 10, similar rejection as to claim 1.
As to claims 16, similar rejection as to claim 1.
As to claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20, these claims are rejected based on their dependencies to the above claims.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”).
As to claim 1, Wang discloses:
a method comprising:
receiving, at an application server, a request for a service to be initiated in relation to a user equipment (Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches a UE sending an authorization request to a ProSe Function (i.e., application server);
providing, by the application server to a second computing device, a query related to the user equipment (Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches the ProSe Function sends a request (i.e., query) for subscription information about the UE to the HSS (i.e., second computing device));
receiving, by the application server, information related to a current status of the user equipment in response to the query (Fig. 3, Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches the HSS responds with identified subscription information of the UE (i.e., current status of the UE) that is related to proximity services);
making, by the application server based on policy data associated with the service and the information related to the current status of the user equipment, an initiation decision related to the service (¶0059 – Wang teaches HSS responds with subscription parameters for the UE, and ProSe function determines whether this application is authorized for discovery.);
providing, by the application server to the user equipment, instructions to initiate the service based on the initiation decision (¶0049 – Wang teaches the ProSe Function sending an authorization response to the UE with authorization information for a proximity service (i.e., instructions to initiate service)).
As to claim 2, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1, and
wherein the current status of the user equipment comprises at least one of geographic coordinates, a cell identifier, a PLMN code, or a RAT type associated with the user equipment (¶0049 – Wang teaches UE 120 may perform direct discovery and/or direct communications using a PLMN that is authorized by ProSe function).
As to claim 3, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1, and
wherein the initiation decision comprises a decision as to whether the service should be initiated (¶0049 – Wang teaches the request of service is an authorization request made by the UE to the ProSe Function. If the UE is not authorized, the service would not be initiated).
As to claim 4, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1, and
wherein the policy data includes an indication of one or more regions and the initiation decision is made based on whether a current location of the user equipment indicated in the information related to the current status of the user equipment is within the one or more regions (¶0076 – Wang teaches comparing location codes (i.e., regions) to determine if there is a match and if a UE should be authorized.).
As to claim 7, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1, and
wherein the application server does not communicate with the user equipment between receiving the request for the service and providing the instructions to initiate the service (Fig. 3 of Wang – Wang shows the ProSe Function communicating with the HSS and not the UE between the UE request and the ProSe Function response).
As to claim 10, similar rejection as to claim 1.
As to claim 11, Wang discloses:
computing device of claim 10, and
wherein the second computing device comprises a home subscriber server (HSS) (Fig. 3, 117 of Wang).
As to claim 13, Wang discloses:
computing device of claim 10, and
wherein the policy data comprises an indication of one or more conditions during which the user equipment is authorized to initiate the service (¶0007 – Wang teaches a discovery authorization procedure for ProSe (i.e. proximity services). The authorization mechanism includes a validation controller configured to receive information for a discovery request sent by an application in a UE. The discovery request includes an Application ID for the application. The authorization mechanism further includes a rules engine configured to determine validation rules (i.e., conditions) for the discovery authorization procedure.).
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0021146 A1 to Mufti et al. (“Mufti”).
As to claim 5, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1,
Mufti discloses what Wang does not expressly disclose.
Mufti discloses:
wherein the policy data includes an indication of a radio access type and the initiation decision is made based on whether RAT type of the user equipment indicated in the information related to the current status of the user equipment (¶0025 – Mufti teaches the system determines whether the requested IMS service is whitelisted. The system may make this determination by querying a policy table to determine whether the associated visited network, RAT type, and requested service are whitelisted in the policy table.).
Wang and Mufti are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate RAT types as discussed in Mufti with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Mufti to the system/method of Wang in order to demonstrate how a RAT type can be used determine whitelisted IMS services (Mufti, Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0307732 A1 to Olsson et al. (“Olsson”).
As to claim 6, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1,
Olsson discloses what Wang does not expressly disclose.
Olsson discloses:
wherein the policy data includes an indication of a set of cell identifiers and the initiation decision is made based on whether a current cell identifier associated with the user equipment is within the set of cell identifiers (Fig. 3, ¶0080 – Olsson teaches an AS requesting and receiving location information, in the form of the Cell ID of the cell on which the UE is currently camped).
Wang and Olsson are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate cell identifiers as discussed in Olsson with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Olsson to the system/method of Wang in order to help determine where a user is located (Olsson, ¶0080).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0134444 A1 to Buckley et al. (“Buckley”).
As to claim 8, Wang discloses:
method of claim 1,
Buckely discloses what Wang does not expressly disclose.
Buckely discloses:
wherein providing the instructions to initiate the service comprises providing the instructions to a S-CSCF node assigned to the user equipment (¶0099 – Buckely teaches a HSS will download to the S-CSCF a service profile. Service profile describe under what circumstances the IMS application servers should be involved in a call/session.).
Wang and Buckely are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HSS/application server communications as discussed in Buckely with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Buckely to the system/method of Wang in order to demonstrate how communications between an HSS and application server can be conducted (Buckely, ¶0099).
As to claim 9, Wang and Buckely discloses:
method of claim 8, and
Buckely discloses:
wherein the S-CSCF node is assigned to the user equipment during a registration process for the user equipment (¶0060 – Buckley teaches assigning an S-CSCF when a subscriber registers in the network.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 8.
Claims 12, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0166878 A1 to Xia et al. (“Xia”).
As to claim 12, Wang discloses:
computing device of claim 11,
Xia discloses what Wang does not expressly disclose.
Xia discloses:
wherein the HSS is caused to forward the query to a mobile management entity (MME) for the information related to the current status of the user equipment (Fig. 7, ¶0073 – Xia teaches an HSS sends an Insert Subscriber Data Request to the MME. The insert subscriber data request (IDR) flag is set to “T-ADS Data Request” for T-ADS querying about the UE's IMS status. At block 703, the MME sends an Insert Subscriber Data Answer to the HSS. The MME may fill the new IE “IMS-Voice-Over-PS-Sessions-Status” with value “ACTIVE” or “INACTIVE” in the Insert Subscriber Data Answer according to the UE's current IMS PDN status.).
Wang and Xia are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HSS/MME interactions as discussed in Xia with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Xia to the system/method of Wang in order to determine the status of a UE (Xia, ¶0073).
As to claim 16, Wang discloses:
a system comprising:
a home subscriber server (HSS) (Fig. 1, HSS, 117) configured to:
upon receiving a second query related to the user equipment (Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches the ProSe Function sends a request (i.e., query) for subscription information about the UE to the HSS (i.e., second computing device)): identify the MME as being associated with the user equipment;
submit the first query to the MME (Fig. 7, ¶0073 – Xia teaches an HSS sends an Insert Subscriber Data Request to the MME. The insert subscriber data request (IDR) flag is set to “T-ADS Data Request” for T-ADS querying about the UE's IMS status. At block 703, the MME sends an Insert Subscriber Data Answer to the HSS. The MME may fill the new IE “IMS-Voice-Over-PS-Sessions-Status” with value “ACTIVE” or “INACTIVE” in the Insert Subscriber Data Answer according to the UE's current IMS PDN status.); and
forward the current status information about the user equipment as received from the MME to an application server (Fig. 3, Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches the HSS responds with identified subscription information of the UE (i.e., current status of the UE) that is related to proximity services); and
the application server (Fig. 1, ProSe Function, 130) configured to:
upon receiving a request to initiate a service at the user equipment, submit the second query to the HSS (Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches a UE sending an authorization request to a ProSe Function (i.e., application server);
upon receiving the current status information about the user equipment from the HSS, determine whether to initiate the service (Fig. 3, Fig. 3, ¶0049 – Wang teaches the HSS responds with identified subscription information of the UE (i.e., current status of the UE) that is related to proximity services); and
upon determining that the service is to be initiated, provide a communication to the user equipment (¶0049 – Wang teaches the ProSe Function sending a authorization response to the UE with authorization information for a proximity service (i.e., instructions to initiate service); ¶0059 – Wang teaches the ProSe function 130 performs some type of authorization of a UE by querying HSS 117. HSS 117 responds with subscription parameters for the UE, and ProSe function 130 determines whether this application is authorized for discovery).
Xia discloses what Wang does not expressly disclose.
Xia discloses:
a mobile management entity (MME) (Fig. 1, MME, 18) configured to:
upon receiving a first query for current status information about a user equipment, retrieve and provide the current status information about the user equipment in a response to the first query (Fig. 7, ¶0073 – Xia teaches an HSS sends an Insert Subscriber Data Request to the MME. The insert subscriber data request (IDR) flag is set to “T-ADS Data Request” for T-ADS querying about the UE's IMS status. At block 703, the MME sends an Insert Subscriber Data Answer to the HSS. The MME may fill the new IE “IMS-Voice-Over-PS-Sessions-Status” with value “ACTIVE” or “INACTIVE” in the Insert Subscriber Data Answer according to the UE's current IMS PDN status.);
a home subscriber server (HSS) (Fig. 1, HSS, 161) configured to:
submit the first query to the MME (Fig. 7, ¶0073 – Xia teaches an HSS sends an Insert Subscriber Data Request to the MME. The insert subscriber data request (IDR) flag is set to “T-ADS Data Request” for T-ADS querying about the UE's IMS status. At block 703, the MME sends an Insert Subscriber Data Answer to the HSS. The MME may fill the new IE “IMS-Voice-Over-PS-Sessions-Status” with value “ACTIVE” or “INACTIVE” in the Insert Subscriber Data Answer according to the UE's current IMS PDN status.); and
The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 12.
As to claim 18, Wang and Xia discloses:
system of claim 16, and
Wang discloses:
wherein the application server is further configured to not provide any message to the user equipment prior to providing the communication to the user equipment (Fig. 3 of Wang – Wang shows the ProSe Function communicating with the HSS and not the UE between the UE request and the ProSe Function response).
As to claim 20, Wang and Xia discloses:
system of claim 16, and
Wang disloses:
wherein the HSS is further configured to provide, to the application server, account information related to the user equipment (¶0049 – Wang teaches the ProSe Function sending a authorization response to the UE with authorization information for a proximity service (i.e., instructions to initiate service)), and
wherein the application server is further configured to determine whether to initiate the service based on the account information (¶0059 – Wang teaches the ProSe function 130 performs some type of authorization of a UE by querying HSS 117. HSS 117 responds with subscription parameters for the UE, and ProSe function 130 determines whether this application is authorized for discovery).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,381 B1 to Bonn et al. (“Bonn”).
As to claim 14, Wang discloses:
computing device of claim 13,
Bonn discloses what Wang does not expressly disclose.
Bonn discloses:
wherein the one or more conditions are determined based on a level of service attributed to an account associated with the user equipment (Fig. 5, col. 6 ll. 29-49 – Bonn teaches To determine network QoS, S-CSCF A forwards the INVITE to application server A, and application server A dips HSS A with the IMSI for UE A to get a network QoS.).
Wang and Bonn are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate QoS messaging as discussed in Bonn with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Bonn to the system/method of Wang in order to the level of service of a device (Bonn, col. 3 ll. 62-67, col. 4 ll. 1-5).
As to claim 15, Wang and Bonn discloses:
computing device of claim 14, and
Bonn discloses:
wherein the level of service attributed to the account is provided to the application server by the second computing device (Fig. 5, col. 6 ll. 29-49 – Bonn teaches To determine network QoS, S-CSCF A forwards the INVITE to application server A, and application server A dips HSS A with the IMSI for UE A to get a network QoS.). The suggestion/motivation and obviousness rejection is the same as in claim 14.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0166878 A1 to Xia et al. (“Xia”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0021146 A1 to Mufti et al. (“Mufti”).
As to claim 17, Wang and Xia discloses:
system of claim 16,
Toshniwal discloses what Wang and Xia does not expressly disclose.
Toshniwal discloses:
wherein the communication comprises a session initiation protocol (SIP) invite communication (¶0012 – Toshniwal teaches use of SIP invite messages).
Wang, Xia and Toshniwal are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS systems.
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SIP as discussed in Toshniwal with HSS/MME interactions as discussed in Xia with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Toshniwal to the system/method of Wang and Xia in order to establish communication sessions (Toshniwal, ¶0003).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0336902 A1 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0166878 A1 to Xia et al. (“Xia”) in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0021146 A1 to Mufti et al. (“Mufti”).
As to claim 19, Wang and Xia discloses:
system of claim 16,
Mufti discloses what Wang and Xia does not expressly disclose.
Mufti discloses:
wherein the service comprises service providing at least one of voice, video or text messaging provided over an IMS network (¶0002 – Mufti teaches various application services that are available on the IMS network, such as Voice over LTE (VoLTE), Rich Communication Services (RCS), Short Message Service over Internet Protocol (SMS over IP)).
Wang, Xia and Mufti are analogous arts because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to IMS system
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate data communication types as discussed in Mufti with HSS/MME interactions as discussed in Xia with IMS system to establish a service with a UE as discussed in Wang by adding the functionality of Mufti to the system/method of Wang and Xia in order to show the types of services a device is capable for registering (Mufti, ¶0002).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR A ELFERVIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (10:00 AM CST) - Friday (4:00 PM CST).
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/TAYLOR A ELFERVIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445