DETAILED ACTION
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Somes (US 2011/0051714).
Regarding claim 1, Somes teaches a method comprising:
removing call origin information from a call message (i.e., receiving a call originating from a VoIP customer; para. [0023] and [0045] and removing the tgrp, tgrp-context from the request URI; para. [0026] and [0027], or stripping trunk group information; para. [0045] and [0047]);
adding a trunk group identifier (TGRP) to a header of the call message to create a modified call message that identified origin carrier information (i.e., "tgrp" and
'tgrp-context' is added; para. [0031]-[0032] and [0073]); and
forwarding the modified call message to a destination network associated with
the call recipient (i.e., the SIP tgrp and/or tgrp-context received in the VoIP R-URI
signaling of the call may be forwarded to a routing device; para. [0034]-[0035], to
international carrier, etc.; para. [0036], network element or gateway, para. [0040]-[0041] or to a NGW; para. [0073] and [0082]).
Regarding claim 4, Somes further teaches a "SIP R-URI userinfo" as a payload portion of an X-header of the request URI of the call (para. [0032]). Also, the setting "DeliverTrunk-Groupinfo", etc. is used as the payload portion of the X-header in para. [0048].
Regarding claim 5, Somes further teaches the limitations of the claim in para. [0045].
Regarding claim 6, Somes further teaches the "tgrp" or "tgrp-context" for identifying TN, originating IP and location identifier such as a country code, etc. in settings (para. [0029] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Somes teaches an apparatus (i.e., TRE controller 901 as
shown in figure 9; para. [0092]) comprising:
a processor (i.e., CPU 903; para. [0093] and [0098]) configured to
remove call origin information from a call message (i.e., receiving a call originating from a VoIP customer; para. [0023] and [0045] and removing the tgrp, tgrp-context from the request URI; para. [0026] and [0027], or stripping trunk group information; para. [0045] and [0047]);
add a trunk group identifier (TGRP) to a header of the call message to create a modified call message that identified origin carrier information (i.e., "tgrp" and 'tgrp-context' is added; para. [0031]-[0032] and [0073]); and
forward the modified call message to a destination network associated with the call recipient (i.e., the SIP tgrp and/or tgrp-context received in the VoIP R-URI signaling of the call may be forwarded to a routing device; para. [0034]-[0035], to international carrier, etc.; para. [0036], network element or gateway, para. [0040]-[0041] or to a NGW; para. [0073] and [0082]).
Regarding claim 11, Somes further teaches a "SIP R-URI userinfo" as a payload portion of an X-header of the request URI of the call (para. [0032]). Also, the setting "DeliverTrunk-Groupinfo", etc. is used as the payload portion of the X-header in para. [0048].
Regarding claim 12, Somes further teaches the limitations of the claim in para. [0045].
Regarding claim 13, Somes further teaches the "tgrp" or "tgrp-context" for identifying TN, originating IP and location identifier such as a country code, etc. in settings (para. [0029] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 15, Somes teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions that when executed cause a processor (i.e., a memory 929, ROM 906, RAM 905 in figure 9; para. [0098] and [0099]) to perform:
removing call origin information from a call message (i.e., receiving a call originating from a VoIP customer; para. [0023] and [0045] and removing the tgrp, tgrp-context from the request URI; para. [0026] and [0027], or stripping trunk group information; para. [0045] and [0047]);
adding a trunk group identifier (TGRP) to a header of the call message to create a modified call message that identified origin carrier information (i.e., "tgrp" and
'tgrp-context' is added; para. [0031]-[0032] and [0073]); and
forwarding the modified call message to a destination network associated with
the call recipient (i.e., the SIP tgrp and/or tgrp-context received in the VoIP R-URI
signaling of the call may be forwarded to a routing device; para. [0034]-[0035], to
international carrier, etc.; para. [0036], network element or gateway, para. [0040]-[0041] or to a NGW; para. [0073] and [0082]).
Regarding claim 18, Somes further teaches a "SIP R-URI userinfo" as a payload portion of an X-header of the request URI of the call (para. [0032]). Also, the setting "DeliverTrunk-Groupinfo", etc. is used as the payload portion of the X-header in para. [0048].
Regarding claim 19, Somes further teaches the limitations of the claim in para. [0045].
Regarding claim 20, Somes further teaches the "tgrp" or "tgrp-context" for identifying TN, originating IP and location identifier such as a country code, etc. in settings (para. [0029] and [0031]).
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 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somes (US 2011/0051714) in view of Bunch et al. (US 2011/0252154).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Somes further teaches SIP mechanism, SIP, SIP Request-URI (para. [0013]-[0014]) and VoIP R-URI signaling (para. [0027]). Somes failed to describe one of SIP mechanism, SIP, SIP Request-URI and/or VoIP R-URI signaling as a call message comprising a SIP INVITE. However, Bunch et al. (hereinafter “Bunch”) teaches a call message comprising a SIP INVITE in paragraph [0098].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of a call message comprising a SIP INVITE, as taught by Bunch, into view of Somes in order to transmit the signaling information between the network nodes in the VoIP telecommunications network.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somes (US 2011/0051714) in view of Bunch et al. (US 2011/0252154), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Christopher et al. (US 2020/0153875).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Somes and Bunch, in combination, failed to teach the header to be added to the SIP INVITE. However, Christopher teaches the feature, such as additional information as a separate SIP header to be added to the SIP invite in paragraph [0098], as taught by Christopher, into Somes and Bunch in order to transmit the signaling information between the network nodes in the VoIP telecommunications network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of a call message comprising a SIP INVITE, as taught by Christopher, into view of Somes and Bunch, in order to transmit the signaling information between the network nodes in the VoIP telecommunications network.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somes (US 2011/0051714) in view of Davis (US 10,708,417).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Somes teaches all subject matters, such as adding the modified tgrp and tgrp-context to the call message as claimed above, except for the features of determining an origin carrier network based on an operating company number parameter from an external data source based on a telephone number identified by the TGRP in the header of the call message. However, Davis teaches a system comprising a traffic control module 102 to query a LNP database 712 for routing information based on a given phone number, i.e., a telephone number of a recipient. The routing number may include the OCN of a network device, such as network device 708, as shown in figure 7 (col.25, lines 10-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of the features of determining an origin carrier network based on an operating company number parameter from an external data source based on a telephone number identified by the TGRP in the header of the call message, as taught by Davis, into view of Somes in order to determine route path to route the call message to the next carrier network and/or designed destination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,766. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent and/or recited in different words (In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,766. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent and/or recited in different words (In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,979,565. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are broader in scope than the claims of the patent and/or recited in different words (In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7510. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-7510 and E-mail address: BINH.TIEU@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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 S. TSANG can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
Any response to this action should be mailed or handed carry deliveries to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (FAIR) 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 FAIR system, see fitp://nair-direct.usoto.aqev. If you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Binh Kien Tieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Date: July 2026
Prosecution Insights