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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 32, 33, 40, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Santis et al. (US PGPUB 20140328348 A1) in view of Hoffpauir et al. (US PGPUB 20230247064 A1).
Regarding claim 32, de Santis teaches labelling the data with a field that has a value set to identify the point of interception at which the data was intercepted (see sections [0048], [0065] and FIGs. 2, 3, 4” read as the mediation function (MF3) label each intercepted IP packets with a service identifier based on the identified IP service and forwards the marked packets to the law enforcement system”),
labeling the data comprises determining the value to which to set the field based on information stored in the network mediation device indicating different values to which to respectively set the field for different possible points of interception in the communication network (see sections [0048], [0065] and FIGs. 2, 3, 4” “Classifying (determines) the payload data by identifying (e.g. identifier identifies the POI) the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs. The mediation function MF3 168 further comprises classifying means 172 for classifying the payload data by identifying the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs”),
sending the labeled data over a handover interface from the network mediation device towards a law enforcement monitoring facility (see sections [0064]- [0066], FIGs. 2, 3, 4” read as method step 240 and the sender 176 FIG. 3 is configured to forward via the handover interface HI3 the marked IP packets to the LEMF for further delivery to the Law Enforcement Agency, the service identifier is inserted in the Lawful Interception header of the HI3 protocol”).
de Santis fails to explicitly suggest a method performed by a network mediation device in a communication network of a communication service provider, the method comprising: receiving data intercepted at a point of interception in the communication network as part of a lawful interception service.
However, In an analogous field of endeavor, Hoffpauir teaches a method performed by a network mediation device (see section [0072], FIG. 3 “Network interface 504 includes a receiver 516 for receiving signals from the communication network”), in a communication network of a communication service provider (see sections [0035], [0199] and FIG.1 “services Provider (CSP) network 102 and a Law enforcement network 106 coupled together via communication link 148, [0199] “directed to communications network which are partners, e.g., a communications service provider (CSP) network and a law enforcement network”),
receiving data intercepted at a point of interception in the communication network as part of a lawful interception service (see section [0069], FIG. 2E “read as 434 POI device receives the traffic signals from user device 1 108, POI interface traffic 440, POI copies and stores intercepted traffic corresponding to the target 442).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis with Hoffpauir to include by a method performed by a network mediation device in a communication network of a communication service provider, the method comprising: receiving data intercepted at a point of interception in the communication network as part of a lawful interception service thereby, to improved methods and/or apparatus for securing intercepted traffic and/or other communications between devices participating in a lawful intercept as taught by Hoffpauir (see section [0005]).
Regarding claim 33, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 32, In addition, de Santis teaches determining the value comprises determining the value to which to set the field based on: a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted (see section [0067], FIG. 3 “Identifying the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator. The classifying means 172 is configured to identify the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator”),
an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device (see sections [0068], [0072], FIG. 3 “an Intercept Related Information IRI report comprising at least metadata. The mediation functionality MF2 124 is configured to forward an IRI report, i.e. an Intercept Related Information report, comprising at least metadata which is based on the received payload data sent to the Law Enforcement Agency 180”).
Regarding claim 40, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 32, In addition, Hoffpauir teaches receiving the information from a lawful interception administrative device in the communication network (see section [0065], FIG. 2D “the LD device 126 send the approved LI order 378 to the Lawful Interception Administrative device (LID) 124 for provisioning”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis with Hoffpauir to include by receiving the information from a lawful interception administrative device in the communication network thereby, to improved methods and/or apparatus for securing intercepted traffic and/or other communications between devices participating in a lawful intercept as taught by Hoffpauir (see section [0005]).
Regarding claim 48, de Santis teaches label the data with a field that has a value set to identify the point of interception at which the data was intercepted (see sections [0048], [0065] and FIGs. 2, 3, 4” read as the mediation function (MF3) label each intercepted IP packets with a service identifier based on the identified IP service and forwards the marked packets to the law enforcement system”),
labeling the data comprises determining the value to which to set the field based on information stored in the network mediation device indicating different values to which to respectively set the field for different possible points of interception in the communication network (see sections [0064], [0065] and FIGs. 2, 3, 4” “Classifying (determines) the payload data by identifying (e.g. identifier identifies the POI) the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs. The mediation function MF3 168 further comprises classifying means 172 for classifying the payload data by identifying the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs”),
send the labeled data over a handover interface from the network mediation device towards a law enforcement monitoring facility (see sections [0064]- [0066], FIGs. 2, 3, 4” read as method step 240 and the sender 176 FIG. 3 is configured to forward via the handover interface HI3 the marked IP packets to the LEMF for further delivery to the Law Enforcement Agency, the service identifier is inserted in the Lawful Interception header of the HI3 protocol”).
de Santis fails to explicitly suggest a network mediation device configured for use in a communication network of a communication service provider, the network mediation device comprising: communication circuitry; and processing circuitry configured to: receive data intercepted at a point of interception in the communication network as part of a lawful interception service.
However, In an analogous field of endeavor, Hoffpauir teaches a network mediation device configured (see section [0072], FIG. 3 “Network interface 504 includes a receiver 516 for receiving signals from the communication network”), in a communication network of a communication service provider (see section [0035], FIG.1 “services Provider (CSP) network 102 and a Law enforcement network 106 coupled together via communication link 148),
the network mediation device comprising: communication circuitry (see section [0099] “read as mediation device that performs lawful interception function receiving data, processing/filtering forwarding, the functions can be implemented using hardware circuits, software or both”),
and processing circuitry configured to: receive data intercepted at a point of interception in the communication network as part of a lawful interception service (see section [0069], FIG. 2E “434 POI device receives the traffic signals from user device 1 108, POI interface traffic 440, POI copies and stores intercepted traffic corresponding to the target 442).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis with Hoffpauir to include a network mediation device configured for use in a communication network of a communication service provider, the network mediation device comprising: communication circuitry; and processing circuitry configured to: receive data intercepted at a point of interception in the communication network as part of a lawful interception service thereby, to improved methods and/or apparatus for securing intercepted traffic and/or other communications between devices participating in a lawful intercept as taught by Hoffpauir (see section [0005]).
Regarding claim 49, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 48, In addition, de Santis teaches the processing circuitry (see section [0040] “a processor unit configured to control the circuitry”) configured to determine the value to which to set the field based on: a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted (see section [0067], FIG. 3 “Identifying the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator. The classifying means 172 is configured to identify the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator”),
an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device (see sections [0068], [0072], FIG. 3 “an Intercept Related Information IRI report comprising at least metadata. The mediation functionality MF2 124 is configured to forward an IRI report, i.e. an Intercept Related Information report, comprising at least metadata which is based on the received payload data sent to the Law Enforcement Agency 180”).
Claims 42, 43, 50, and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffpauir et al. (US PGPUB 20230247064 A1) in view of de Santis et al. (US PGPUB 20140328348 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Hoffpauir teaches a method performed by a lawful interception administrative device in a communication network of a communication service provider (see section [0065], FIG. 2D “ In step 366 the LEA device 130 sends the generated order for LI intercept 368 to the legal department (LD) device 126 of the communications service provider (CSP) network 102 and In step 374 the LD device 126 send the approved LI order 378 to the Lawful Interception Administrative device (LID) 124 for provisioning”),
transmitting, to a network mediation device in the communication network (see section [0073], FIG. 3 “Network interface 504 includes a receiver 516 and a transmitter 518, coupled to connector 519, via which the mediation device 500 may receive and send signals to other network nodes, e.g. a point of interception (POI) device, a lawful interception security engine (LISE), a lawful intercept device (LID), a law enforcement agency (LEA) device, e.g., a terminal used by a law enforcement agent, a law enforcement management facility (LEMF) device, and/or the Internet”),
information indicating, for each of different possible points of interception at which data is interceptable as part of a lawful interception service in the communication network (see section [0069], FIG. 2E “read as 434 POI device receives the traffic signals from user device 1 108, POI interface traffic 440, POI copies and stores intercepted traffic corresponding to the target 442).
Hoffpauir fails to explicitly suggest a value of a field with which the network mediation device is to label the data for sending over a handover interface towards a law enforcement monitoring facility.
However, In an analogous field of endeavor, de Santis teaches a value of a field with which the network mediation device is to label the data for sending over a handover interface towards a law enforcement monitoring facility (see sections [0064]- [0066], FIGs. 2, 3, 4” read as method step 240 and the sender 176 FIG. 3 is configured to forward via the handover interface HI3 the marked IP packets to the LEMF for further delivery to the Law Enforcement Agency, the service identifier is inserted in the Lawful Interception header of the HI3 protocol”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir with de Santis to include a value of a field with which the network mediation device is to label the data for sending over a handover interface towards a law enforcement monitoring facility thereby, to marking (labeling) each IP packet of the received payload data with a service identifier corresponding to the classification of the specific IP service to which the received payload data (e.g. identifier identifies the POI) belongs as taught by de Santis (see section [0009]).
Regarding claim 43, combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis teaches all the limitations of claim 42, In addition, de Santis teaches the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted (see section [0067], FIG. 3 “Identifying the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator. The classifying means 172 is configured to identify the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator”),
an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device (see sections [0068], [0072], FIG. 3 “an Intercept Related Information IRI report comprising at least metadata. The mediation functionality MF2 124 is configured to forward an IRI report, i.e. an Intercept Related Information report, comprising at least metadata which is based on the received payload data sent to the Law Enforcement Agency 180”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir with de Santis to include the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of:a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted; and an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device thereby, to marking (labeling) each IP packet of the received payload data with a service identifier corresponding to the classification of the specific IP service to which the received payload data (e.g. identifier identifies the POI) belongs as taught by de Santis (see section [0009]).
Regarding claim 50, Hoffpauir teaches a lawful interception administrative device configured for use in a communication network of a communication service provider (see section [0065], FIG. 2D “ In step 366 the LEA device 130 sends the generated order for LI intercept 368 to the legal department (LD) device 126 of the communications service provider (CSP) network 102 and In step 374 the LD device 126 send the approved LI order 378 to the Lawful Interception Administrative device (LID) 124 for provisioning”),
the lawful interception administrative device comprising: communication circuitry processing circuitry (see section [0099] “circuits within assembly of components 510, external to and coupled to the processor “) configured to transmit, via the communication circuitry, to a network mediation device in the communication network (see section [0073], FIG. 3 “Network interface 504 includes a receiver 516 and a transmitter 518, coupled to connector 519, via which the mediation device 500 may receive and send signals to other network nodes, e.g. a point of interception (POI) device, a lawful interception security engine (LISE), a lawful intercept device (LID), a law enforcement agency (LEA) device, e.g., a terminal used by a law enforcement agent, a law enforcement management facility (LEMF) device, and/or the Internet”),
information indicating, for each of different possible points of interception at which data is interceptable as part of a lawful interception service in the communication network (see section [0069], FIG. 2E “read as 434 POI device receives the traffic signals from user device 1 108, POI interface traffic 440, POI copies and stores intercepted traffic corresponding to the target 442),
Hoffpauir fails to explicitly suggest a value of a field with which the network mediation device is to label the data for sending over a handover interface towards a law enforcement monitoring facility.
However, In an analogous field of endeavor, de Santis teaches a value of a field with which the network mediation device is to label the data for sending over a handover interface towards a law enforcement monitoring facility (see sections [0064]- [0066], FIGs. 2, 3, 4” read as method step 240 and the sender 176 FIG. 3 is configured to forward via the handover interface HI3 the marked IP packets to the LEMF for further delivery to the Law Enforcement Agency, the service identifier is inserted in the Lawful Interception header of the HI3 protocol”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir with de Santis to include a value of a field with which the network mediation device is to label the data for sending over a handover interface towards a law enforcement monitoring facility thereby, to marking (labeling) each IP packet of the received payload data with a service identifier corresponding to the classification of the specific IP service to which the received payload data (e.g. identifier identifies the POI) belongs as taught by de Santis (see section [0009]).
Regarding claim 51, combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis teaches all the limitations of claim 50, In addition, de Santis teaches the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of: a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted (see section [0067], FIG. 3 “Identifying the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator. The classifying means 172 is configured to identify the specific IP service to which the received payload data belongs by means of preferences set by the network operator”),
an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device (see sections [0068], [0072], FIG. 3 “an Intercept Related Information IRI report comprising at least metadata. The mediation functionality MF2 124 is configured to forward an IRI report, i.e. an Intercept Related Information report, comprising at least metadata which is based on the received payload data sent to the Law Enforcement Agency 180”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir with de Santis to include the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of:a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted; and an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device thereby, to marking (labeling) each IP packet of the received payload data with a service identifier corresponding to the classification of the specific IP service to which the received payload data (e.g. identifier identifies the POI) belongs as taught by de Santis (see section [0009]).
Claims 34-39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Santis et al. (US PGPUB 20140328348 A1) and Hoffpauir et al. (US PGPUB 20230247064 A1) as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Miettinen et al. (US PGPUB 20030101356 A1).
Regarding claim 34, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 33, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach determining the value comprises determining the value to which to set the field also based on: a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed; and a country within which the data was intercepted
Miettinen teaches determining the value comprises determining the value to which to set the field also based on: a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0046], and FIG. 7 “read as HI1 carrier administrative commands, acknowledgments, status reports, and error notifications related to the management of lawful interception, rather than intercepted communication data”),
a country within which the data was intercepted (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include by determining the value comprises determining the value to which to set the field also based on: a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed; and a country within which the data was intercepted. thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 35, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 32, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach the information stored in the network mediation device maps different possible combinations of values for identifying parameters to different possible values for the field, wherein the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters are respectively associated with the different possible points of interception in the communication network, and wherein labeling the data comprises: determining which combination of values for the identifying parameters is associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted; and consulting the information stored in the network mediation device to determine which possible value for the field is mapped to the determined combination of values; and setting the value of the field to the determined value
Miettinen teaches the information stored in the network mediation device maps different possible combinations of values for identifying parameters to different possible values for the field (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “generating a unique PDP-ID, identifies the MCC (Mobile Country Code) of a network operator, MNC (Mobile Network Code) to create operator ID, combine the PDP-ID, operator-ID, and DF-ID to generate to a unique correlation number”),
the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters are respectively associated with the different possible points of interception in the communication network (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “generating a unique PDP-ID, identifies the MCC (Mobile Country Code) of a network operator, MNC (Mobile Network Code) to create operator ID, combine the PDP-ID, operator-ID, and DF-ID to generate to a unique correlation number”),
labeling the data comprises: determining which combination of values for the identifying parameters is associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0046], and FIG. 7 “read as administrative information sent over HI1 with status reports and data related to the interception function such as target identity changed (labeling, modification), subscriber number changes or new MSN creation”),
consulting the information stored in the network mediation device to determine which possible value for the field is mapped to the determined combination of values and setting the value of the field to the determined value (Claim 1, Abstract, see sections [0036] “A service provider may be the same organization as the network operator and interception may be required for several service providers using the same telecommunication network, and generating a unique PDP-ID, identifies the MCC (Mobile Country Code) of a network operator, MNC (Mobile Network Code) to create operator ID, combine the PDP-ID, operator-ID, and DF-ID to generate to a unique correlation number”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include by the information stored in the network mediation device maps different possible combinations of values for identifying parameters to different possible values for the field, wherein the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters are respectively associated with the different possible points of interception in the communication network, and wherein labeling the data comprises: determining which combination of values for the identifying parameters is associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted; and consulting the information stored in the network mediation device to determine which possible value for the field is mapped to the determined combination of values; and setting the value of the field to the determined value thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract]).
Regarding claim 36, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 35, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach the identifying parameters include: a device parameter whose value indicates a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted; an interface parameter whose value indicates an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device; a parameter whose value indicates a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed; and a country parameter whose value indicates a country within which the data was intercepted
Miettinen teaches a device parameter whose value indicates a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted (see section [0054] “The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”),
an interface parameter whose value indicates an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device (see section [0056] “the intercepted target has one or more PDP contexts active and then forwards the PDP contexts to the DF2P. The DF2P allocates a PDP-ID for each received PDP context and stores the PDP-IDs internally”),
a parameter whose value indicates a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed (see section [0054] “The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”),
a country parameter whose value indicates a country within which the data was intercepted (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include by the identifying parameters include: a device parameter whose value indicates a name of a network device at which the data was intercepted; an interface parameter whose value indicates an interface used by the network device to provide the data to the network mediation device; a parameter whose value indicates a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed; and a country parameter whose value indicates a country within which the data was intercepted thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 37, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 35, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach wherein, for each of the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters, the possible value for the field mapped to that possible combination of values for the identifying parameters is a hash of that possible combination of values
Miettinen teaches wherein, for each of the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters (see section [0054] and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”),
the possible value for the field mapped to that possible combination of values for the identifying parameters is a hash of that possible combination of values (Claim1, abstract and FIGs. 5,6, and 7 “generating a correlation number for use in lawful interception of telecommunications traffic, the method comprising following steps: handling an event and generating a unique PDP-ID (Packet Data Protocol Context Identifier) which is in table (hash) format shown in Fig. 7”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include wherein, for each of the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters, the possible value for the field mapped to that possible combination of values for the identifying parameters is a hash of that possible combination of values thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 38, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 35, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach receiving an asserted combination of values for the identifying parameters which is asserted as being associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted; validating the asserted combination of values as being a valid combination of values in the communication network; and based on validating the asserted combination of values, determining that the asserted combination of values for the identifying parameters is associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted
Miettinen teaches receiving an asserted combination of values for the identifying parameters which is asserted as being associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted (see section [0054], FIG.7” The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained (asserted) by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information”),
validating the asserted combination of values as being a valid combination of values in the communication network (see section [0055],” read as DF (delivery function) generate and maintain a unique PDP-ID for each active PDP context, the DF keep track(validating) of the PDP-IDs”),
based on validating the asserted combination of values, determining that the asserted combination of values for the identifying parameters is associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted (see sections [0054, [0055] and FIG.7” read as created and maintained (asserted) by the DF and DF track(validating) of the PDP-IDs, the Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s clamed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include receiving an asserted combination of values for the identifying parameters which is asserted as being associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted; validating the asserted combination of values as being a valid combination of values in the communication network; and based on validating the asserted combination of values, determining that the asserted combination of values for the identifying parameters is associated with the point of interception at which the data was intercepted thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 39, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 32, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach the field is an interceptionPointlD field within a packet switched header.
Miettinen teaches the field is an interceptionPointlD field within a packet switched header (see sections “Claim 1, Abstract, and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include the field is an interceptionPointlD field within a packet switched header thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 41, combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir teaches all the limitations of claim 32, However, the combination of de Santis and Hoffpauir fails to teach wherein said labeling comprises labeling the data with another field that has a value set to identify the network mediation device
Miettinen teaches labeling comprises labeling the data with another field that has a value set to identify the network mediation device (see section “[0046], [0050] read as target identity changed (labeling, modification), subscriber number changes or new MSN creation and the mediation function MF is defined to be a mechanism which passes information between a network operator or access provider or service provider and a handover interface”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify de Santis and Hoffpauir with Miettinen to include wherein said labeling comprises labeling the data with another field that has a value set to identify the network mediation device thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Claims 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffpauir et al. (US PGPUB 20230247064 A1) and de Santis et al. (US PGPUB 20140328348 A1) as applied to claim 42 above, and further in view of Miettinen et al. (US PGPUB 20030101356 A1).
Regarding claim 44, combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis teaches all the limitations of claim 43, However, the combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis fails to teach the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of: a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed; and a country within which the data was intercepted
Miettinen teaches the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0046], and FIG. 7 “read as HI1 carrier administrative commands, acknowledgments, status reports, and error notifications related to the management of lawful interception, rather than intercepted communication data”),
a country within which the data was intercepted (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir and de Santis with Miettinen to include by the value of the field with which the network mediation device is to label the data is a function of: a name of the communication service provider or the communication network within which the network device is deployed; and a country within which the data was intercepted thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 45, combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis teaches all the limitations of claim 42, However, the combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis fails to teach the information maps different possible combinations of values for identifying parameters to different possible values for the field, and wherein the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters are respectively associated with the different possible points of interception in the communication network
Miettinen teaches the information maps different possible combinations of values for identifying parameters to different possible values for the field (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “generating a unique PDP-ID, identifies the MCC (Mobile Country Code) of a network operator, MNC (Mobile Network Code) to create operator ID, combine the PDP-ID, operator-ID, and DF-ID to generate to a unique correlation number”),
the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters are respectively associated with the different possible points of interception in the communication network (Claim 1, Abstract, see section [0054], and FIG. 7 “generating a unique PDP-ID, identifies the MCC (Mobile Country Code) of a network operator, MNC (Mobile Network Code) to create operator ID, combine the PDP-ID, operator-ID, and DF-ID to generate to a unique correlation number”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir and de Santis with Miettinen to include by the information maps different possible combinations of values for identifying parameters to different possible values for the field, and wherein the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters are respectively associated with the different possible points of interception in the communication network thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 46, combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis teaches all the limitations of claim 42, However, the combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis fails to teach wherein further comprising generating, for each of the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters, the possible value for the field mapped to that possible combination of values for the identifying parameters as a hash of that possible combination of values
Miettinen teaches wherein further comprising generating, for each of the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters (see section [0054] and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator. The DF-ID identifies the DF inside the network of one operator and is allocated by the operator itself”),
the possible value for the field mapped to that possible combination of values for the identifying parameters as a hash of that possible combination of values (Claim1, abstract and FIGs. 5,6, and 7 “generating a correlation number for use in lawful interception of telecommunications traffic, the method comprising following steps: handling an event and generating a unique PDP-ID (Packet Data Protocol Context Identifier) which is in table (hash) format shown in Fig. 7”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir and de Santis with Miettinen to include by wherein further comprising generating, for each of the different possible combinations of values for the identifying parameters, the possible value for the field mapped to that possible combination of values for the identifying parameters as a hash of that possible combination of values thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Regarding claim 47, combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis teaches all the limitations of claim 42, However, the combination of Hoffpauir and de Santis fails to teach the field is an interceptionPointlD field within a packet switched header
Miettinen teaches the field is an interceptionPointlD field within a packet switched header (see sections “Claim 1, Abstract, and FIG. 7 “The PDP-ID (PDP Context Identifier) uniquely identifies each PDP context and is created and maintained by the DF (Delivery Function) without requiring any GGSN-specific information. The Operator-ID consists of the MCC (Mobile Country Code) and MNC (Mobile Network Code) of the operator and uniquely identifies the operator”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to modify Hoffpauir and de Santis with Miettinen to include the field is an interceptionPointlD field within a packet switched header thereby, in order to generate the correlation number taught by Miettinen (see section [Abstract lines 10-12]).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTIBEN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 to 5:00 alternate Friday off.
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, Addy Anthony can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/ARTIBEN JAIMIN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights