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 .
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.
Claims 7, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recite “… receiving, from the second UE, another second protocol-based message that includes the priority header field; …”. The definition is unclear, It is unclear what “the priority header field” refer to, is it the same priority header field as recited in the previous second protocol message recited in claim 1, or a new priority header field generated for this another second protocol messages or something else. Claim 7 is dependent of claim 1, it is not clear whether the process flow is processed after Claim 1, or it is an independent/separate flow, which disclose another process flow of encoding the message from second UE to first UE.
Claim 16 has similar issues with “the priority header field”. Thus, is rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonn et al. (US 20210392103 A1, hereinafter Bonn) in view of Kuoppa et al. (US 20250113170 A1, hereinafter Kuoppa).
Claim 1: Bonn teaches A method (abstract), comprising:
receiving, by a network device (Fig. 3, element 120), a first protocol-based message that includes priority header information indicative of a priority level associated with a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 3, [0023], The SIP message includes the high-priority message that is typically addressed to a high-priority destination, UE 110 transfers the SIP message that indicates the high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause and that includes the high-priority message to wireless network 120, [0031], The SIP application adds a P-Access-Network-Info PANI header to the SIP message that indicates the Wireless Priority Service WPS high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause and the WPS Access Class. Wherein SIP is reading as a first protocol, Fig. 7, [0034], The UL N3 data may include a SIP
message that carries a WPS IPSM and the WPS high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause. Fig. 2, [0022], disclose circuitry 111 signals radio 112 to wirelessly attach to wireless network 120 using a high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause in response to the high-priority request from wireless UE);
encoding, by the network device, the first protocol-based message into a second protocol- based message that includes a priority header field generated based on the priority header information (Fig. 3, [0022-0023], disclose Wireless network 120 network transfers the SIP message to message network 120 using the high-priority QoS responsive to the high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause, Message network 130 transfers an Internet Protocol Short Message IPSM to data network 140 that includes high-priority QoS marks and that includes the high-priority message, Data network 140
transfers the IPSM to message destination 150 using the high-priority QoS responsive to the high-priority QoS marks and/or the high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause, wherein SIP is reading as first protocol message, message with WPS IPSM is reading as second protocol message. Fig. 7, [0047-0049], disclose priority message delivery flow, receiving short session initiation protocol SIP message, generating a new message containing the WPS IPSM, WPS header, DSCP mark, PANI header with WPS high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause, the WPS Access Class and etc., routing the new message to IPSM GW in NFVI 730 via short message peer-to-peer gateway SMPP GW, and then deliver the IPSM to 5GNR UE 710 over the IMS bearer between 5GNR UE 710 and the P-CSCF in NFVI 730, wherein the converting flow from received SIP message to a IPSM message by adding WPS IPSM, WPS header, DSCP mark, is reading as encoding the first protocol-based message into a second protocol- based message.[0031], The SIP application adds a P-Access-Network-Info (PANI) header to the SIP message that indicates the WPS high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause and the WPS Access Class);
and causing, by the network device, the second protocol-based message to be provided to a second UE (Fig. 7, [0049], disclose the IPSM GW in NFVI 730 generates another SIP message with WPS IPSM , priority header , PANI header and etc., and transferring the other SIP message to UE710 over the IMS bearer between UE 710 and NFVI 730, wherein the message with WPS IPSM is reading as second protocol-based message, [0044], “In 5GNR UE 710, the RRC exchanges network signaling with the RRC/SDAP in 5GNR access node 720 over their PDCPs, RLCs, MACs, and PHYs. The RRC in access node 720 exchanges N2 signaling with the AMF in NFVI 730. The RRCs and AMF establish an IMS bearer between the SDAP in 5GNR UE 710 and a P-CSCF in 5G NFVI 730”).
However, Bonn does not explicitly teach a second UE associated with an intercarrier network.
Kuoppa, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a second UE associated with an intercarrier network (Fig. 2, [0036-0044], an SIP signaling path of a communication session can pass from the terminal 242 to terminal 244, network 200 may include USSD gateway, ATGW, GPRS gateway, GSM and etc., Access networks include a packed-switched PS access network, an Evolved Packet System EPS network and etc.).
Bonn and Kuoppa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Bonn and the features of exchange message between intercarrier network as taught by Kuoppa, for the benefit for allowing access networks communicate with an application network, via an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network or other network, thus providing services to a terminal (paragraph [0038]).
Claim 8 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 and Bonn further teaches one or more processors (Fig. 5, element 521, [0052], “the computer hardware comprises
processing circuitry like CPUs, DSPs, GPUs, transceivers, bus circuitry, and memory”).
Claim 15 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 and Bonn further teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a network device ([0053], the computer hardware executes machine-level software to control and move data, the higher-level software programs comprise operating systems, utilities, user applications, both the higher-level software programs and their compiled machine-level software are stored in memory and retrieved for compilation and execution)
Claim 2: Bonn teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: queuing the second protocol-based message over other queued message based on the priority header field ([0013], “the enhanced QoS comprises priority access to wireless network 120, overload exemptions in wireless network 120, and overload exemptions in message network 130. The priority access enables immediate wireless connectivity for high-priority messaging when other UEs may be temporarily denied wireless access”).
Claim 4: Bonn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first protocol-based message is a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-based message (Fig.7, [0047], disclose The P-CSCF in NFVI 430 receives a Session Initiation Protocol SIP message and adds a WPS header responsive to the destination prefix in the IPSM), and the second protocol-based message is a Short Message Peer-to-Peer (SMPP) protocol-based message (Fig. 7, SMPP GW in NFVI 430, SMPP GW in NFVI 730, [0048], the IPSM GW in NFVI 430 generates a new SIP INVITE message that is addressed to the Short Message Peer-to-Pee SMPP GW in NFVI 730, The IPSM GW in NFVI 430 may use a Short Message Service Center SMSC for SIP message routing and generation between SMPP GWs).
Claim 6: Bonn teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the priority header field causes differentiated delivery of the second protocol-based message based on a priority level associated with one of a mission-critical service ([0019-0020], disclose Data network 140 transfers the emergency 911 message to message destination 150 using the emergency QoS responsive to emergency QoS marks in the high-priority message , The emergency Establishment Cause could be placed in the high-priority SIP message to trigger the high-priority QoS in message network 130), a multimedia priority service (alternative), or a higher-tier enterprise service (alternative).
Claim 7 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1, and Bonn further teaches destination responsive to emergence message ([0019], “Message destination 150 handles the emergency message using the emergency QoS—possibly responsive to emergency QoS marks in the emergency message or in the other SIP message that encapsulates the emergency message”), and response message including priority header (Fig. 7, [0050], disclose 5GNR UE 710 add the priority header and the DSCP mark to SIP response messages, NFVI 730 handle the response SIP messages with the WPS QoS based on the priority header and the DHCP mark in the responses)
Claim 16 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 7.
Claim 9: Bonn teaches The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the second protocol-based message to be provided to the second UE, are configured to one or more of: select a transmission path with an expedited routing option for the second protocol-based message (alternative); or suppress non-priority message transmission while the second protocol-based message is provided to the second UE ([0013], “The overload exemption enables the prompt delivery of high-priority messages during message overloads when other UE messages may be discarded or significantly delayed”, [0017-0018], Message network 130 will not delay/discard the high-priority
message during overloads, Message network 130 may delay/discard the standard message during overloads).
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 9.
Claim 12: Bonn teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the second protocol-based message to be provided to the second UE, are configured to: encrypt the second protocol-based message during provision of the second protocol-based message to the second UE (Fig. 5, element RRC,PDCP, [0036], disclose 5GNR wireless access node transfers the WPS messages for 5GNR UE using the WPS QoS, 5GNR ACCESS NODE perform RRC and PDCP functions, and RRC functions comprise authentication, security and etc., PDCP functions comprise security ciphering, header compression and decompression and etc.).
Claim 13: Bonn teaches The network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the second protocol-based message to be provided to the second UE, are configured to: apply an integrity check to confirm that the priority header field remains unaltered during provision of the second protocol-based message to the second UE (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0020-0021], disclose circuitry 111 generates a SIP INVITE message to place the call that includes the *272 WPS calling prefix and the high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause, Message network 130 uses both the *272 WPS calling prefix and the high-priority-attachment Establish Cause to distinguish between a high-priority message and a malicious message, [0041], “the P-CSCF checks the PANI header for the WPS high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause and for the WPS Access Class. When the PANI header has the correct WPS high-priority-attachment Establishment Cause and WPS Access Class, the P-CSCF adds a WPS header to the WPS SIP message”).
Claim 3: Bonn does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: caching the second protocol-based message in a priority message queue that is separate from a standard message queue.
Kuoppa, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches caching the second protocol-based message in a priority message queue that is separate from a standard message queue (Fig. 7, elements 708, 710, [0081-0083], disclose add the first message into either higher rank queue or lower rank queue based on whether message including a prioritization indicator or not).
Bonn and Kuoppa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Bonn and the features of caching the second protocol-based message in a priority message queue that is separate from a standard message queue as taught by Kuoppa, for the benefit for prioritizing higher-importance messages to different group, improving the efficacy (e.g., reducing the delay) of the telecommunications network for transmission of more important communications in times of limited bandwidth (paragraph [0083]), providing a flexible, secure way to manage transmission of text messages between devices on a network based on bandwidth constraints or detection of emergencies (paragraph [0043]).
Claim 17 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 3.
Claim 5: Bonn does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the priority header field includes a plurality of priority levels for routing the second protocol-based message.
Kuoppa, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the priority header field includes a plurality of priority levels for routing the second protocol-based message ([0052], disclose the prioritization flag can indicate multiple levels of priority, such as a high level, a low level, and/or a medium level.).
The motivation for combining Bonn and Kuoppa regarding to the claim 3 is also applied to claim 5.
Claim 14: Bonn teaches the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor network congestion levels (Fig. 3, [0017-0018], disclose message network 120 will not delay/discard the high-priority message during overloads, and deny wireless attachment or delay/discard the standard message during overloads);
However, Bonn does not explicitly teach dynamically adapt a transmission priority of the second protocol-based message based on the network congestion levels and in accordance with the priority header field.
Kuoppa, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches dynamically adapt a transmission priority of the second protocol-based message based on the network congestion levels and in accordance with the priority header field (Fig. 5, [0043], “transmission system modifies a ranked order of messages within the message queue based on determining a prioritization indicator for the given messages”, [0065], disclose generating rank by prioritizing messages with QoS indicators based on an emergency situation, limited bandwidth, [0060-0061], disclose QoS indicators is associated with priority level, and QoS indicators or priority tokens are within the message).
The motivation for combining Bonn and Kuoppa regarding to the claim 3 is also applied to claim 14.
Claim 10: Bonn does not explicitly teach the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to encode the first protocol-based message into the second protocol-based message, are configured to one or more of: map the priority level to a level of the priority header field; or convert a range of priority levels to respective ranges in the priority header field.
Kuoppa, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors, to encode the first protocol-based message into the second protocol-based message, are configured to one or more of: map the priority level to a level of the priority header field (Fig., 4, [0056- 0060], disclose the QoS indicators priority mapping table according to category 406 and Element 408, [0062], if found De-prioritization indicators within a message, decrease the prioritization level of a message, Fig. 7, element 706, [0075], the message transmission system can determine whether the message transmission request includes any elements 408 in the message prioritization database 402 associated with the sender); or convert a range of priority levels to respective ranges in the priority header field (alternative).
The motivation for combining Bonn and Kuoppa regarding to the claim 3 is also applied to claim 10.
Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 10.
Claim 11: Bonn does not explicitly teach the network device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the second UE, a confirmation of receipt of the second protocol-based message, notify the first UE of successful delivery of the first protocol-based message based on the confirmation of receipt of the second protocol-based message.
Kuoppa, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches receive, from the second UE, a confirmation of receipt of the second protocol-based message, notify the first UE of successful delivery of the first protocol-based message based on the confirmation of receipt of the second protocol-based message ([0055], A recipient of a message, e.g., a second user can include an intended or apparent recipient of a message, a recipient of a message can include an entity that receives a message on a corresponding mobile device, an apparent recipient can include the apparent recipient identifier 308 included with the message transmission request 302).
Bonn and Kuoppa are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Bonn and the features of notify the first UE of successful delivery of the first protocol-based message as taught by Kuoppa, for the benefit for allowing the message transmission system know whether to generate a message to the sender's intended recipient when the intended recipient is different from the apparent recipient, based on the message modification criteria (paragraph [0055]).
Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. The closest prior art reference is Verma et al. (US 20180097661 A1, hereinafter Verma), which describes a system of converting the incoming call to a prioritized call achieving priority features over other calls in the terminating network and Pre-emption service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on (571) 270-5443. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights