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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 08/27/2026.
Claims 6 and 10 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been canceled.
Claim objection with informalities to claim 6 is withdrawn since it has been amended accordingly.
New title is accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1–9, 14, 15, 17 and 18. Applicant argues that Yared and Noldus do not disclose, alone or in combination, (a) determining whether to transmit, and transmitting, a query request to an SLF node, or (b) transmitting the first registration refresh request based on the historical registration information (claim 1), or processing based on cached subscriber subscription information (claim 6), when a response timer for the query times out or an error response transmitted by the SLF is received. These arguments are persuasive. Yared decides whether to bypass the HSS from statistics of past transactions (Yared, ¶ [0041]), and neither Yared nor Noldus discloses an SLF node or a response timer tied to a query to an SLF. The rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. See the reasons for allowance below.
Applicant additionally characterizes the SLF query as "part of an HSS address resolution procedure." Claim 1 does not recite address resolution or locating the HSS; it recites that the first query request "is used for querying a home subscriber server HSS corresponding to the UE." The arguments are therefore not relied on to the extent they depend on that characterization. The withdrawal above rests on the claim language, namely the query request transmitted to an SLF node and the timeout or SLF error trigger.
Claim 10 and claims 11, 13, 16 and 19. Applicant states that claims 6, 10 and 14–19 "incorporate corresponding technical features that are similar to those recited in amended claim 1" and are patentable for similar reasons. This argument is not persuasive as to claim 10. Claim 10 does not recite an SLF node, a query request, or a response timer. Claim 10 recites the P-CSCF receiving a registration refresh request, generating a first registration refresh request comprising historical registration information, and transmitting it to the I-CSCF, where the I-CSCF uses that information to determine the S-CSCF. Yared discloses each of these steps ([0072], [0037], [0035], [0040]), as set forth above. Amended claim 10 incorporates former claim 12, which was rejected as anticipated by Yared in the previous action, and the amendment therefore does not change the ground of rejection. Claims 11, 13, 16 and 19 depend from or reference claim 10 and are not separately argued. The rejections are maintained.
The dependent-claim argument, that dependent claims are allowable because they depend from allowable independent claims, is likewise not persuasive as to claims 11, 13, 16 and 19, because claim 10 remains rejected.
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.
Claim 13 depends from claim 10 and recites "the request result response information." Neither claim 10 nor claim 13 introduces "request result response information." That term is introduced only in claim 11, and claim 13 does not depend from claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is examined below as best understood, reading the term as a request result response information corresponding to the first registration refresh request. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13, 16 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Yared (US 2016/0345284).
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 (preamble): "A request processing method applied to a proxy-call session control function (P-CSCF) node, the method comprises:"
Claim limitation: "receiving a registration refresh request transmitted by a UE;"
Yared discloses: "the IMS system 60 receives a register request from a User Equipment (UE) at a Proxy Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF), step 902." ([0072]). The register request that the P-CSCF determines to be a reregister request is the claimed registration refresh request.
Claim limitation: "generating a first registration refresh request based on the registration refresh request transmitted by the UE, wherein the first registration refresh request comprises historical registration information corresponding to the UE,"
Yared discloses: "when the P-CSCF has determined that the registration request is a reregistration, it can append the Service Route that was stored during the initial registration to the reregister request before sending it to the I-CSCF 30, step 402." ([0037]). The reregister request with the appended Service Route is the claimed first registration refresh request, and the Service Route stored during the initial registration is the claimed historical registration information.
Claim limitation: "the historical registration information carries address information of a registration server cached by the P-CSCF in the case that a last registration by the UE is successful; and"
Yared discloses: "during a successful initial registration procedure, the S-CSCF 50 informs the P-CSCF 20, via information in a Service Route header, of the address of the S-CSCF 50 that is serving the UE 10." ([0035]). The S-CSCF is the claimed registration server, and the P-CSCF's stored copy of the address received from a successful registration is the claimed cached address information.
Claim limitation: "transmitting the first registration refresh request to an inquire-call session control function (I-CSCF) node, wherein the historical registration information in the first registration refresh request is used to determine, by the I-CSCF, a S-CSCF corresponding to an address of a registration server carried in the historical registration information."
Yared discloses: "The I-CSCF 30, which now has the serving S-CSCF 50 routing information included in the reregister request, can proceed to forward the reregister request to the serving S-CSCF 50, step 404." ([0040]). The transmission of the request to the I-CSCF is disclosed in the passage from [0037] quoted above ("before sending it to the I-CSCF 30, step 402"). The I-CSCF's use of the S-CSCF routing information in the request to forward the request to the serving S-CSCF is the claimed determination, by the I-CSCF, of a S-CSCF corresponding to the address carried in the historical registration information.
Regarding claim 11,
Claim limitation: "receiving a request result response information corresponding to the first registration refresh request transmitted by the I-CSCF; transmitting the request result response information to the UE."
Yared discloses: "Once the S-CSCF 50 receives the registration request, it can then continue to process the registration, step 406. Then, OKs are returned, steps 408, 410 and 412." ([0044]). In FIG. 4, the OK responses of steps 408, 410 and 412 travel back from the S-CSCF through the I-CSCF and the P-CSCF to the UE. The OK response received by the P-CSCF from the I-CSCF and forwarded to the UE is the claimed request result response information.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim limitation: "wherein the request result response information is obtained based on a subscriber subscription information cached by a S-CSCF."
Yared discloses: "When S-CSCF 1 receives the reregister request, step 602, it may already have the UE's profile downloaded, along with updated authentication vectors, and may not need to send a Server-Assignment-Request (SAR) to the HSS 40." ([0061]). Yared continues: "The registration procedure in such a case should execute successfully." ([0061]). The UE's profile already held at the S-CSCF is the claimed cached subscriber subscription information, and the successful registration result returned to the UE ([0044], quoted above) is obtained on that basis.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim limitation: "A proxy-call session control function (P-CSCF) node comprising: a processor; and a memory, the memory being coupled to the processor, wherein the processor and the memory are configured to enable the P-CSCF to implement the request processing method of claim 10."
Yared discloses: "FIG. 11 is a block diagram of a P-CSCF node 20 suitable for implementing aspects of the embodiments disclosed herein. The P-CSCF 20 comprises a processing circuit 1010 and memory 1012." ([0084]). The P-CSCF node with a processing circuit and memory is the claimed P-CSCF node with a processor and memory. The method of claim 10 is disclosed by Yared as set forth above.
Regarding claim 19,
Claim limitation: "A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions being used to perform the request processing method of claim 10."
Yared discloses: "Embodiments of the present disclosure may also be implemented as computer program products that are stored on computer-readable storage mediums, the computer program products including programming instructions that are configured to cause the processing circuits to carry out the steps described herein." ([0093]). The computer-readable storage medium storing programming instructions is the claimed storage medium storing computer-executable instructions. The method of claim 10 is disclosed by Yared as set forth above. Yared does not use the word "non-transitory"; a computer-readable storage medium that stores the instructions is a physical storage medium, as distinguished from the "carrier wave" alternative that Yared separately describes in [0028].
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1–9, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are allowed.
Basis in the invention as claimed
The application relates to processing a registration refresh request in an IMS network. The abstract states that the first registration refresh request "includes historical registration information corresponding to UE," that this information "carries address information of a registration server that is cached by P-CSCF in the case that a last registration is successful," and that "signaling surge, congestion, and service interruption" can be overcome so that "network robustness can be improved." The claimed allowable subject matter implements this by tying the fallback to a response timer and an error response for a query sent to a subscriber location function (SLF).
Features of independent claim 1
None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests an I-CSCF method that includes all of the following together:
receiving, from a P-CSCF, a first registration refresh request comprising historical registration information that carries address information of a registration server cached by the P-CSCF when the UE's last registration is successful;
determining whether to transmit a first query request to an SLF node, wherein the first query request is used for querying an HSS corresponding to the UE, and, in response, transmitting the first query request to the SLF; and
transmitting the first registration refresh request to an S-CSCF node based on the historical registration information when a first response timer timing the first query request times out or an error response transmitted by the SLF is received.
Features of independent claim 6
None of the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests an S-CSCF method that includes all of the following together:
receiving, from an I-CSCF, a first registration refresh request comprising the historical registration information described above;
determining whether to transmit a third query request to an SLF node used for querying an HSS corresponding to the UE, and, in response, transmitting the third query request to the SLF; and
processing the first registration refresh request based on cached subscriber subscription information when a third response timer timing the third query request times out or an error response transmitted by the SLF is received.
Prior art of record
Yared (US 2016/0345284 A1) discloses the P-CSCF appending the stored Service Route to a reregister request ([0037]) and the I-CSCF forwarding it to the serving S-CSCF ([0040]). Its bypass decision is statistical: "the I-CSCF 30 keeps statistics on the success rate of the transactions e.g. on the Diameter Cx/Dx interfaces to the HSS 40" ([0041]). Yared mentions "a response time out" only as a possible failure of a UAR sent to the HSS ([0043]) and does not disclose an SLF node, a query to an SLF, or a response timer that triggers the forwarding.
Noldus (US 2014/0092853 A1) discloses the I-CSCF that "queries the HSS 6.1 as normal" ([0079]) and S-CSCF caching of subscriber data to optimize data transfer (¶ [0084]). Noldus discloses neither an SLF nor a response timer or error-triggered fallback.
US 2021/0360041 A1 (Ericsson) discloses that "The I-CSCF 34 transmits a user authorization request (UAR) 404 to the database 20 (e.g. the SLF or HSS database)" ([0096]). That passage shows only the successful path and does not disclose a response timer, an error response from the SLF, or forwarding based on historical registration information or processing based on cached subscriber subscription information. This reference should be listed on form PTO-892 if it is relied on in the record.
Chiang (US 2025/0024236 A1) discloses a UE-side timer triggered by user input during registration ([0011]). It does not disclose a timer for a query sent by an I-CSCF or S-CSCF to an SLF.
Ma (US 2008/0039081 A1), Chapman (US 2007/0179812 A1) and Spata (US 2020/0320975 A1) do not disclose the SLF query with the timeout or error-triggered behavior recited in claims 1 and 6.
Dependent claims
Claims 2–5 and 14 and 17 depend from claim 1, and claims 7–9, 15 and 18 depend from claim 6. Each is allowable for at least the reasons given for its parent claim. Claim 2 and claim 7 further recite a second (or fourth) query request to the HSS with a second (or fourth) response timer, and claims 5 and 9 recite a determination based on whether the SLF is online or on a pre-configured forwarding policy, none of which is taught by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Harry H. Kim whose telephone number and email address are as follows; 571-272-5009, harry.kim2@uspto.gov.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from www.uspto.gov. For questions or assistance, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/HARRY H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights