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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2025 and was filed after the mailing date of 04/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
The following rejection is in accordance with the election of Group I, claim 1-13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, and 9-10 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 recites the limitation " A first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: a processor configured to: send a reachability request to a reachability management function (RMF) in response to receiving the indication that the second WTRU has one or more configured alternate reachability methods, wherein the reachability request comprises information associated with the first WTRU." There is insufficient antecedent basis in this limitation for “the indication” and “the second WTRU” in the claim
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 1-6, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganathan et al. (US 10462238 B1) (“Naganathan”) in view of Harris et al. (US 2008/0161062 A1)(“Harris”).
Regarding claim 1, A first wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: a processor (Naganathan, Fig. 2, Ref. 202) configured to: send a reachability request to a reachability management function (RMF) in response to receiving the indication that the second WTRU has one or more configured alternate reachability methods, wherein the reachability request comprises information associated with the first WTRU;
Naganathan, Col. 13: 62-65 and Col. 14: 1-4, The reachability engine 208 can process and respond to the requests for the reachability of the specified party. In the first example, the request includes a unique identifier (e.g., a name, a username, a network address, phone number, etc.) assigned to the specified party and a unique identifier of a requesting party (e.g., another name, username, network address, phone number, etc.). In response to the request, the reachability engine 208 can retrieve a profile record from a profile database 210 for the specified party.
and the requesting party; Naganathan Col. 17: 39-65 disclose the alternate modes for the specified
party being previously stored);
receive a reachability response from the RMF that indicates the second WTRU is able to connect with the first WTRU, wherein the reachability response comprises alternate reachability information to connect the first WTRU with the second WTRU via one of the one or more configured alternate reachability methods;
Naganathan, Col. 17: 16-21; The alternative mode engine 212 can analyze the alternative mode data (e.g., the email tracking data, the short messaging tracking data, the instant message tracking data and/or current activity tracking data) to determine one or more suggested alternate modes of communication for the specified party.
and Col. 17: 39-41; The reachability engine 208 can return the determined reachability for the specified party to the requesting device employed by the requesting party);
send a call request.
Naganathan Col. 12, 47-49; the client 60 can initiate communication with the specified party via a
selected mode of communication.
Naganathan does not teach send a call request to an application server (AS) using the alternate reachability information associated with the second WTRU and receive a call response that indicates a call is established.
Harris teches send a call request to an application server (AS) using the alternate reachability information associated with the second WTRU and receive a call response that indicates a call is established. (Harris [0032], Figs.1-2, device 105 send a call to server 120 and call successful message).
In view of Harris, Naganathan is modified such that a call request to an application server (AS) using the
alternate reachability information associated with the second WTRU and receive a call response that
indicates a call is established.
Naganathan and Harris are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of
endeavor, sending a call request to establish connection.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Naganathan in a manner described above for the first UE to
create a successful connection with the application server to demonstrate the establishment of the
call after evaluating certain occurrences (Harris [0017]).
Regarding claim 2, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to send the reachability request based on RMF information received or based on the call rejection.
Naganathan, Col. 13: 62-65 and Col. 14: 1-4, The reachability engine 208 can process and respond to the requests for the reachability of the specified party. In the first example, the request includes a unique identifier (e.g., a name, a username, a network address, phone number, etc.) assigned to the specified party and a unique identifier of a requesting party (e.g., another name, username, network address, phone number, etc.). In response to the request, the reachability engine 208 can retrieve a profile record from a profile database 210 for the specified party)
and the requesting party; Naganathan Col. 17: 39-65 disclose the alternate modes for the specified
party being previously stored);
Regarding claim 3, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive the alternate reachability information at an application client (AC) residing on the first WTRU.
Naganathan Col. 3: 65-67 and Col. 4: 1-2; In some examples, the request for reachability can be generated by the client 60 (client application), for example, in response to an attempt to request voice communications (e.g., a phone call, video conferencing, etc.) with the specified party. Additionally or alternatively, the request for reachability can be generated in response to a particular user input.
Regarding claim 4, The first WTRU of claim 3, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the AC based on information associated with the alternate reachability information.
Naganathan Col. 12: 9-18, The reachability engine 62 can return the determined reachability for the specified party to the client 60 of the client computer 58 employed by the requesting party. Similarly, the reachability engine 62 can return the expected reachability of the specified party as a function of time to the client. Additionally, in some situations, the reachability engine 62 can provide a suggested mode of communication, which can be voice communications or the suggested alternate mode of communication for the specified party to the client 60.
Regarding claim 5, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to send the second call request to the AS based on alternate reachability information.
(Harris [0032], Figs.1-2, device 105 send a call to server 120 and call successful message).
Regarding claim 6, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the call response comprises an indication to a user that the call is established.
(Harris [0032], Figs.1-2, device 105 send a call to server 120 and call successful message).
In view of Harris, Naganathan is modified such that a call request to an application server (AS) using the
alternate reachability information associated with the second WTRU and receive a call response that
indicates a call is established.
Naganathan and Harris are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of
endeavor, sending a call request to establish connection.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Naganathan in a manner described above for the first UE to
create a successful connection with the application server to demonstrate the establishment of the
call after evaluating certain occurrences (Harris [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the alternate reachability information comprises validity conditions that indicates the alternate reachability information validity for establishing a connection between the first WTRU and the second WTRU.
Col. 11:15-22; Additionally, in some examples, if the reachability engine 62 determines that the reachability of the specified party is below a reachability threshold (e.g., 20%), the reachability engine 62 can query an alternative mode engine 86 stored in the memory 54 for a suggested alternative mode of communication with the specified party, which may be for the current time in response to a request or at future time indicated in the request.
Regarding claim 11, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the first call request is triggered by a user.
(Harris [0032], Figs.1-2, device 105 send a call to server 120 and call successful message).
In view of Harris, Naganathan is modified such that a call request to an application server (AS) using the
alternate reachability information associated with the second WTRU and receive a call response that
indicates a call is established.
Naganathan and Harris are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of
endeavor, sending a call request to establish connection.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Naganathan in a manner described above for the first UE to
create a successful connection with the application server to demonstrate the establishment of the
call after evaluating certain occurrences (Harris [0017]).
Regarding claim 12, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the first call response further comprises information about the RMF.
Naganathan, Col. 13: 62-65 and Col. 14: 1-4; In response to the request, the reachability engine 208 can retrieve a profile record from a profile database 210 for the specified party.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganathan in view of Harris, in further view of Li et al. (US 2023/0379669 A1)(“Li”).
Regarding claim 13, The first WTRU of claim 1, wherein the information associated with the first WTRU comprises a known identifier, an identifier of the first WTRU, or one or more capabilities associated with the reachability of the first WTRU.
Li [0105] The UE may indicate the UE's status. The status may include the information such as the UE's location, the UE's mobility pattern, the tracking area/registration area of UE, a UE reachability schedule, the UE's radio capability, and the UE's processing and storage capability.
In view of Li, Naganathan is modified such that the information associated with the first WTRU comprises one or more capabilities associated with the reachability of the first WTRU.
Naganathan and Li are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of
endeavor, UE’s capability information.
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Naganathan in a manner described above for the information of the
first UE to include the UE’s capabilities associated with the reachability of the UE to indicate the
supported capability of the UE by the network (Li [0107]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Maryam Emadi whose email is Maryam.emadi1@uspto.gov
with telephone number 703-756-1834.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Joseph Avellino can be reached on 571-272-3905.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be
obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is
available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see
http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the
Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights