DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by U.S Pub. No. 2011/0103265 A1 to Dilipkumar Saklikar et al. (hereinafter “Dilipkumar”).
Regarding claim 1, Dilipkumar teaches a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories including instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to (paragraph [0058]; apparatus 200 comprises a processor 201 that operably couples to a network interface 202):
receive a communication associated with a caller requesting to make a telephone
call to a recipient, wherein the communication includes a recipient identifier associated with the recipient (paragraphs [0064]- [0065]] VOIP serving Node receives a session establishment request a call from a user including a called party recipient identifier associated with the called recipient);
determine a terminating telecommunication service provider (TTSP) to which the recipient identifier is assigned (paragraphs [0064]- [0067]; a called party domain Eg..@home.com, @office.com (TTSP), is determined from the session establishment request);
determine a plurality of identification options available at the TTSP, each
identification option being configured to provide one or more identity attributes associated with the caller to the recipient (paragraphs [0066]- [0067]; called party can ask/query for the required credentials from a different entity that is willing to lend usage of their credentials to the called party for the purpose of establishing a call session. For example, a child (having, for example, having the identity "son@home.com"), having received a request for session establishment, may choose to borrow the required credentials from his father (as might be associated, for example, with "dad@home.com") for the purposes of establishing the call request);
select one or more identification options from the plurality of identification options based on a predefined policy (paragraphs [0066]- [0067]; an identification option is selected such as user);
modify the communication to include the one or more identity attributes associated with the one or more selected identification options, thereby producing a modified communication (paragraphs [0066]- [0067]; the session establishment request call is modified with the new chosen identification option user); and
transmit the modified communication along a call route to the TTSP (paragraphs [0066]- [0068]; the modified session establishment request call is transmitted along a call route to the called party domain).
Regarding claim 2, Dilipkumar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to determine the TTSP to which the recipient identifier is assigned based on one or more predefined mappings (paragraphs [0072]- [0073]; the called party domain is mapped to the called party recipient identifier stored in the registration nodes).
Regarding claim 3, Dilipkumar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to determine the plurality of identification options available at the TTSP based on a predefined mapping that correlates identification options to telecommunication service providers (paragraphs [0064]- [0065] and [0072]- [0073]; the plurality of identification options are determined based on the registered mappings).
Regarding claim 4, Dilipkumar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the communication is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) invite, and wherein the one or more identity attributes indicate a name of the caller, a reason for the telephone call, a logo associated with the caller, or an intent of the telephone call (paragraphs [066]- [0067] and [0172]; the communication session uses SIP invites and the identity attributes indicate personal identities).
Regarding claim 5, Dilipkumar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: prior to routing the telephone call to the TTSP, send a message to the TTSP indicating an intent to invoke the one or more selected identification options for the telephone call, to thereby allow the TTSP to prepare to transmit the telephone call to the recipient with the one or more identity attributes associated with the selected identification option (paragraphs [0064]-[0066]; a SIP Invite message is sent to the called party domain indicating an intent to invoke a select identification).
Regarding claim 6, Dilipkumar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to: receive device data associated with a user device of the recipient, wherein the device data includes information about a capability of the user device to receive the one or more identity attributes (paragraphs [0076] and [0109]; device capabilities are included in the identity attributes); and modify the communication based on the device data (paragraph [0076]; calls are modified/directed to the device with the appropriate capabilities).
Regarding claim 7, Dilipkumar teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the call route comprises a plurality of intermediate telecommunication service providers (paragraph [0067]; identity providers), and the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to:
determine one or more intermediate telecommunication service providers along the call route, wherein the call route extends from an originating telecommunication service provider (OTSP) of the telephone call to the TTSP (Figure 4, Paragraphs [0064-0068]; a call route extends from a called party (TTSP) to a caller from a domain (OTSP) wherein identity providers are determined to obtained required credentials to establish a call session);
determine whether each intermediate telecommunication service provider of the one or more intermediate telecommunication service providers supports transmission of the modified communication (Fig.4 and paragraphs [0067]; an identity provider is determined that supports the users credentials);
for each intermediate telecommunication service provider of the one or more
intermediate telecommunication service providers that does not support transmission of the modified communication (paragraph [0067]), modify the call route to exchange the intermediate telecommunication service provider with a different intermediate telecommunication service provider that supports transmission of the modified communication, to thereby generate a modified call route (Fig.4 and paragraphs [0064]- [0068]; the call route is modified by forwarding a SIP invite to the appropriate identity provider); and
transmit the modified communication along the modified call route (paragraph [0068]; the call session is established between the two parties along the modified call route).
Claim 8-14 are a method claims correspond to system claim 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-14 have been analyzed and rejected based on system claims 1-7.
Claim 15-20 are a non-transitory computer-readable medium claims correspond to system claim 1-3 and 5-7. Therefore, claims 15-20 have been analyzed and rejected based on system claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKELAW A TESHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-5302. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6pm.
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, FAN TSANG can be reached at (571) 272-7547. 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.
AKELAW TESHALE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/AKELAW TESHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694