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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 February 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-13 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 § 102
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuppanna et al. (US 2020/0021609).
In regard to claim 1, Kuppanna disclosed a method comprising:
controlling an access by at least one item of client equipment to an application service implemented by at least one item of service equipment in a telecommunications network, said at least one item of client equipment being configured to access said application service, said method being executed by at least one control equipment and comprising: (Kuppanna [0051], “The enforcement points include…Session Border Controllers”.)
obtaining event information relating to a processing, by the at least one item of service equipment involved in implementing the application service, of messages exchanged during at least one access to said application service; (Kuppanna [0280], SIP messages and INVITE messages)
detecting, from the information obtained, a processing anomaly by the at least one said item of service equipment in relation to at least one given service execution criterion; (Kuppanna [0057], Threat and Incident Manager…receives incidents and indications from all applications and nodes in the system and initiates actions for the automated incident mitigations) and
transmitting to said item of client equipment at least one control message comprising at least one control action of a processing of at least one access request to said application service to be executed by said item of client equipment. (Kuppanna [0081])
In regard to claim 2, Kuppanna disclosed the method of controlling according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises the at least one control equipment implementing a prior learning of a classification model of an automatic detection system of said processing anomaly from a learning set comprising processing event information previously labelled using at least two classes comprising an anomaly presence class and an anomaly absence class and wherein said detection of an anomaly is performed by said system from processing event information obtained for the at least one item of service equipment involved in the implementation of the application service, said system producing at the output one of the at least two classes. (Kuppanna [0057], classification model is threat and incident manager)
In regard to claim 3, Kuppanna disclosed the method of controlling according to claim 1, wherein said control action belongs to a group consisting of:
a control action of a temporal spread of transmissions of requests for establishing application sessions by said item of client equipment;
a control action of a number of attempts by said item of client equipment to establish an application session at said application service; Kuppanna [0246]
a checking action on a replacement number for the telephone number associated with the application service requested by said item of client equipment;
a control action of a priority of the application service, comprising configuration of priority levels assigned to the requested application service and to other services to which said item of client equipment can access; Kuppanna [0246]
a control action of an automatic programming of an announcement server of a replacement number for a telephone number associated with the application service requested by said item of client equipment.
In regard to claim 6, Kuppanna disclosed the method of controlling according to claim 1, wherein said application service comprises setting up a telephone call, and said at least one service execution criterion comprises a telephone call establishment failure rate equal to zero and a telephone call establishment delay below a predetermined threshold. Kuppanna [0086], where “telephone call establishment delay below a predetermined threshold” is “call processing time information” or “link congestion”
In regard to claim 7, Kuppanna disclosed a method comprising:
processing a control message of an access to an application service involving at least one item of service equipment in a telecommunications network, said method being executed by an item of client equipment configured to access said application service, said processing comprising:
receiving the control message from an item of control equipment of said telecommunications network, said control message comprising at least one control action for processing of at least one access request to said application service by said item of client equipment, and (Kuppanna [0081])
executing the control action when processing said request. (Kuppanna [0081])
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
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 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kuppanna in view of Caseau et al. (FR 3099018 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
In regard to claim 4, Kuppanna failed to disclose wherein said application service comprises setting up a telephone call, and said control action comprises configuring at least one telephone number, known as an alias number, to replace a telephone number associated with the application service.
However, Caseau disclosed wherein said application service comprises setting up a telephone call, and said control action comprises configuring at least one telephone number, known as an alias number, to replace a telephone number associated with the application service. (Caseau: “When a customer calls the secondary identifier of the terminal, which corresponds for example to the telephone number of the switchboard of the company in which the user of the terminal is employed, the alias management service makes the association between the secondary identifier and the primary identifier of the terminal and sets up the call with the primary identifier of the terminal, without the need for the customer to know it.”)
Kuppanna and Caseau both used SIP messages to establish voice over IP calls. Kuppanna failed to disclose an alias number, but disclosed the need for detecting anomalies such as link congestion based on requests received in the system. Kuppanna [0086]. Caseau disclosed transferring telephone numbers between terminals using “secondary identifiers” such as a second telephone number based on context of a request received. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an alias telephone number as taught in Caseau with the Kuppanna system of detecting VoIP anomalies in communication in order to allow a client to make a phone call in Kuppanna despite link congestion.
In regard to claim 5, Kuppanna failed to disclose the method of controlling according to claim 1, wherein said application service comprises setting up a telephone call, and said control action comprises automatically programming a server to announce a replacement telephone number for a destination telephone number.
However, Caseau disclosed disclose the method of controlling according to claim 1, wherein said application service comprises setting up a telephone call, and said control action comprises automatically programming a server to announce a replacement telephone number for a destination telephone number. (Caseau: “When a customer calls the secondary identifier of the terminal, which corresponds for example to the telephone number of the switchboard of the company in which the user of the terminal is employed, the alias management service makes the association between the secondary identifier and the primary identifier of the terminal and sets up the call with the primary identifier of the terminal, without the need for the customer to know it.”)
Kuppanna and Caseau both used SIP messages to establish voice over IP calls. Kuppanna failed to disclose an alias (replacement) number, but disclosed the need for detecting anomalies such as link congestion based on requests received in the system. Kuppanna [0086]. Caseau disclosed transferring telephone numbers between terminals using “secondary identifiers” such as a second telephone number based on context of a request received. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an alias telephone number as taught in Caseau with the Kuppanna system of detecting VoIP anomalies in communication in order to allow a client to make a phone call in Kuppanna despite link congestion.
In regard to claim 8, Kuppanna failed to disclose the method of processing according to claim 7, wherein the requested application service comprises setting up a telephone call with a destination, the control action comprises configuring at least one alias telephone number of a telephone number associated with the requested application service, and performing the action comprises:
modifying a header of the message requesting access to said application service, comprising a replacement of the telephone number associated with the requested application service by said alias telephone number.
However, Caseau disclosed the method of processing according to claim 7, wherein the requested application service comprises setting up a telephone call with a destination, the control action comprises configuring at least one alias telephone number of a telephone number associated with the requested application service, and performing the action comprises:
modifying a header of the message requesting access to said application service, comprising a replacement of the telephone number associated with the requested application service by said alias telephone number. . (Caseau: “When a customer calls the secondary identifier of the terminal, which corresponds for example to the telephone number of the switchboard of the company in which the user of the terminal is employed, the alias management service makes the association between the secondary identifier and the primary identifier of the terminal and sets up the call with the primary identifier of the terminal, without the need for the customer to know it.”)
Kuppanna and Caseau both used SIP messages to establish voice over IP calls. Kuppanna failed to disclose an alias (replacement) number, but disclosed the need for detecting anomalies such as link congestion based on requests received in the system. Kuppanna [0086]. Caseau disclosed transferring telephone numbers between terminals using “secondary identifiers” such as a second telephone number based on context of a request received. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an alias telephone number as taught in Caseau with the Kuppanna system of detecting VoIP anomalies in communication in order to allow a client to make a phone call in Kuppanna despite link congestion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights