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 Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments 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.
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.
2. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravindranath et al. (US 20230275994 A1) in view of Hasting et al. (US 20220385856 A1) and Zhu et al. (US 20150046591 A1).
Claim 1 Ravindranath teaches a network element for use in a telephony network, the network element comprising:
a processor; (FIG. 4, processor 402, ¶0038)
a memory (FIG. 4, memory 404, ¶0038) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the network element to perform operations comprising:
receiving a call from a first party, (FIG. 6, steps 616-618, ¶0070, receiving a call from user A) and sending the call to a second party (FIG. 6, step 620, ¶0070, sending the call to user B) on a path referred to as an original path, (Examiner notes that this is non-functional descriptive material without patentable subject matter) the call comprising a signaling flow and a media flow; (¶0011, the call, i.e. the signal flow, can also include media)
determining that a server is to be added to the call by virtue of a message received from the server; (FIG. 6, Call Control 120, ¶0070, determining to insert media server)
adding the server to the call (FIG. 6, step 624, ¶0070, adding media server to the call flow) by redirecting the media flow from the network element to the server, and then from the server to the network element; (FIG. 6, step 624, ¶0070, forking the media to the caption services, wherein the forked element flows to the server then to the network element) and
adding the server to the call by redirecting the media flow through the server. (FIG. 6, step 624, ¶0070, adding media server to the call flow)
However, Ravindranath does not explicitly teach redirecting the media transmitted from the network element to the second party so that it passes through the server before reaching the second party;
determining that the server is to be removed from the call by any of:
receiving a request from an orchestrator, receiving information about a failure of the server, receiving information about a performance drop in a communications link between the server and the network element;
in response to determining that the server is to be remoted from the call:
removing the server from the media flow by ceasing transmission of the media flow between the network element and the server, and restoring direct media transmission between the network element and the second party along the original path of the call; and
maintaining the signaling flow on the original path during the redirecting of the media flow from the network element to the server.
From a related technology, Hasting teaches maintaining the signaling flow on the original path during the redirecting of the media flow from the network element to the server. (Hasting, FIG. 3, ¶0025, maintaining the signal flow from the back-to-back server A301 and web conference broker A303)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ravindranath to maintain signal flow during the redirection of media flow in order to more effectively manage network resources.
However, Ravindranath in view of Hasting does not explicitly teach redirecting the media transmitted from the network element to the second party so that it passes through the server before reaching the second party;
determining that the server is to be removed from the call by any of:
receiving a request from an orchestrator, receiving information about a failure of the server, receiving information about a performance drop in a communications link between the server and the network element;
in response to determining that the server is to be remoted from the call:
removing the server from the media flow by ceasing transmission of the media flow between the network element and the server, and restoring direct media transmission between the network element and the second party along the original path of the call.
From a related technology, Zhu teaches redirecting the media transmitted from the network element to the second party so that it passes through the server before reaching the second party; (Zhu, FIG. 6, ¶0049, redirecting media through another server)
determining that the server is to be removed (Zhu, FIG. 6, step 214, ¶0050, determining a server is to be remove) from the call by any of:
receiving a request from an orchestrator, (Zhu, FIG. 6, step 214, ¶0050, receiving a request to remove the edge server from the call) receiving information about a failure of the server, receiving information about a performance drop in a communications link between the server and the network element;
in response to determining that the server is to be removed from the call, removing the server from the call and redirecting the media flow previously established from the server to the network element and from the network element to the server (See 112(b), the claim is unclear how to handle traffic from the server to the network element, as there was to correlated path in the original path) to the original path of the call. (Zhu, FIG. 6, step 212, ¶0049, moving the server traffic to its original path; Examiner notes FIG. 4, shows adding of the server wherein FIG. 6 shows its removal from the call, ¶0022 and ¶0024) and
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ravindranath to incorporate the techniques used in Zhu to determine and implement the removal of servers from a call as in order to more effectively manage network resources.
Claim 2 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein the call continues without interruption while the network element is in operation. (Zhu, ¶0049, the traffic flow is transferred and therefor would be maintained without interruption)
Claim 3 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach where, prior to determining that the server be added to the call, the network element sends a copy of both the media flow and the signaling flow to the server (Ravindranath, FIG. 6, step 624, ¶0070, forking the media to the caption services, wherein the forked element flows to the server then to the network element) such that the server can determine when to send the message to the network element. (Examiner notes that “such that the server can determine” comprises an intend use statement that does not have patentable weight)
Claim 5 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein adding the server to the call enables a call service incorporating artificial intelligence to be applied to the call. (Examiner notes that “enables… to be applied” is an intended use statement that does not have patentable weight, furthermore “enabling” would be broad enough to be met by the generic capability of computing devices to be programmed)
Claim 6 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein adding the server comprises adding a cloud computing server. (Ravindranath, ¶0034, wherein the server comprises a cloud computing server)
Claim 7 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein adding the server to the call enables fraud detection metrics to be applied to the call. (Examiner notes that “enables… to be applied” is an intended use statement that does not have patentable weight, furthermore “enabling” would be broad enough to be met by the generic capability of computing devices to be programmed)
Claim 8 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein adding the server to the call comprises enabling the server to add contextual announcements to the media flow. (Examiner notes that “enables… to add” is an intended use statement that does not have patentable weight, furthermore “enabling” would be broad enough to be met by the generic capability of computing devices to be programmed)
Claim 9 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein adding the server to the call enables the server to alter the media flow of the call. (Examiner notes that “enables… to alter” is an intended use statement that does not have patentable weight, furthermore “enabling” would be broad enough to be met by the generic capability of computing devices to be programmed)
Claim 10 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 9, and further teach where altering the media flow of the call entails media being added to the media flow in one direction only, such that only one party on the call receives the added media. (Examiner notes that this merely further described the intended use “… to alter” and is an intended use statement that does not have patentable weight)
Claim 11 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, and further teach wherein adding the server to the call enables the server to translate media originating from the first party and to provide translated media to the second party. (Examiner notes that “enables… to translate… and to provide…” is an intended use statement that does not have patentable weight, furthermore “enabling” would be broad enough to be met by the generic capability of computing devices to be programmed)
Claim 12 is taught by Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu as described for Claim 1.
Claim 16 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 12, and further teach where determining that the server is to be removed from the call comprises receiving the further message at the network element. (Zhu, FIG. 6, step 206, ¶0048, receiving a request to remove the edge server from the call)
Claim 17 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 16, and further teach where the further message is received from an orchestration server that monitors the telephony network. (Zhu, FIG. 6, step 206, ¶0048,wherein the device that received the request comprises an orchestration server that monitors the network)
Claim 19 is taught by Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu as described for Claim 1.
Claim 20 Ravindranath in view of Zhu teach Claim 19, and further teach where the server is added to every call handled by the network element. (Ravindranath, FIG. 6, Call Control 120, ¶0070, determining to insert media server, wherein there is only a single call)
2. Claims 4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravindranath et al. (US 20230275994 A1) in view of Hasting et al. (US 20220385856 A1) and Zhu et al. (US 20150046591 A1) and in view of Honig et al. (US 20140112334 A1).
Claim 4 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 1, but does not explicitly teach where the network element is a session border controller.
From a related technology, Honig teaches a session border controller. (¶0005, a session border controller)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravindranath in view of Zhu to incorporate Honig to incorporate well-known network elements such as session border controllers in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Claim 13 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 12, but does not explicitly teach where determining that the server is to be removed by receiving information about a failure of the server comprises the network element detecting a problem on the server.
From a related technology, Honig teaches receiving information about a failure of the server comprises the network element detecting a problem on the server. (¶0055, detecting the failure of a server as a network deficiency, i.e. a problem)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravindranath in view of Zhu to incorporate Honig to incorporate well-known techniques such as detecting problems such as a failure in a server in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Claim 14 Ravindranath in view of Hasting, Zhu and Honig teaches Claim 13, where the problem is failure of the server. (Honig, ¶0055, detecting the failure of a server as a network deficiency, i.e. a problem)
Claim 15 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 12, but does not explicitly teach where determining that the server is to be removed comprises receiving information about a performance drop in a communications link between the server and the network element comprises using the network element to detect a degradation in a measure of media quality applied to the media flow.
From a related technology, Honig teaches receiving information about a performance drop in a communications link between the server and the network element comprises using the network element to detect a degradation in a measure of media quality applied to the media flow. (¶0055, detecting a degradation of the quality of conversation or other conversation quality issues)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravindranath in view of Zhu to incorporate Honig to incorporate well-known techniques such as detecting problems in quality in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
3. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravindranath et al. (US 20230275994 A1) in view of Hasting et al. (US 20220385856 A1) and Zhu et al. (US 20150046591 A1) and in view of Jiang (US 20250240331 A1).
Claim 18 Ravindranath in view of Hasting and Zhu teach Claim 12, but does not explicitly teach where the media flow is redirected by receiving an a=sendrecv Session Description Protocol attribute instructing the network element to redirect the media.
From a related technology, Jiang teaches receiving an a=sendrecv Session Description Protocol attribute instructing the network element to redirect the media. (¶0013 and ¶0015, receiving a=sendrecv to direct media traffic)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ravindranath in view of Zhu to incorporate Jiang to incorporate well-known techniques in order to more effectively utilize network resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER PALACA CADORNA whose telephone number is (571)270-0584. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P CADORNA/Examiner, Art Unit 2444
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights