Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The filed Terminal Disclaimer is approved and the double patenting rejection overcome.
Applicant argues Somes does not teach “receiving an error response to the SIP message”. Applicant states “A notification that a SIP message cannot be routed and a resulting retransmission by the user device is different than receiving an error response to the SIP message…”. However this statement is conclusory in nature as no supporting evidence is provided. How can a notification that a SIP message cannot be routed be considered out of the scope of an error response to a SIP message. While the examiner asserts Some’s notification is within the scope of an error response, the newly cited reference by Asveren also teaches an explicit error response to a SIP message that will be indicated in the rejection.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Asveren is cited in relation to the new limitation concerning “determining if retry is allowed based on the routing information”.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, 13-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0311809 by Somes et al. (Somes) in view of US 11,070,595 by Asveren et al. (Asveren).
With respect to claim 1, Somes teaches a method comprising:
receiving a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message sent from an originating User Equipment (UE) for delivery to a terminating UE (Paragraph 7, first 4 lines) ;
determining routing information for the SIP message based on E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM); (Paragraph 7, 18- 20 – in this example, a determination is made based on included parameters of the SIP message, and a ENUM query of an E.164 number to URI mapping is used for routing the SIP message)
transferring the SIP message for delivery to the terminating UE based on the routing information (Fig. 1a Paragraph 7, 18- 20 – in this example, a determination is made based on included parameters of the SIP message, and a ENUM query of an E.164 number to URI mapping is used for routing the SIP message, toward user device 105-2 step 135 ); and
receiving an error message to the SIP message (Paragraph 9, notification indicating SIP message cannot be routed);
Somes does not explicitly disclose determining if retry is allowed based on the routing information. Asveren teaches receiving an error message to the SIP message and determining if retry is allowed based on the routing information (Col. 28 lines 46 – Col. 29 line 3 – a response to a SIP Invite message may be an error message – e.g. 503 response – and routing information can include retry determination message that determines whether a rejected invite should be resent to a different session controller or not).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the SIP messaging of Somes include further responding error message (e.g. 503 response) and a determination of retry as in Asveren. Using a known SIP response protocol error message to provide an indication of an error would have been obvious. Further, determination of retry is desirable to avoid overload situations and providing efficient and dynamic distribution of traffic (Asveren Col. 1 lines 42-61)
With respect to claim 4, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein determining the routing information based on the ENUM for the terminating UE comprises determining a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI). (Paragraph 7 - the CSCF may perform an E.164 number to URI mapping (ENUM) query using the information included in the user information portion.)
With respect to claim 5, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein: determining the routing information based on the ENUM for the terminating UE comprises determining a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) for a SIP system that serves the terminating UE; and transferring the SIP message for delivery to the terminating UE based on the routing information comprises transferring the SIP message to the SIP system based on the URI. (Paragraph 17 – CSCF may determine a destination address associated with an I-CSCF of another IMS network, based on performing the ENUM query. CSCF 115 may provide the SIP message to the I-CSCF to cause the I-CSCF to route the SIP message, such as to cause the I-CSCF to route the SIP message toward user device 105-2.)
With respect to claim 6, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein: determining the routing information based on the ENUM for the terminating UE comprises translating a number for the terminating UE into a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) for a SIP system that serves the terminating UE; and transferring the SIP message for delivery to the terminating UE based on the routing information comprises transferring the SIP message to the SIP system based on the URI. (Paragraph 16-17 – ENUM query is based on a number found in the formatting of either Tel or SIP URI)
With respect to claim 7, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the SIP message comprises one of a voice call invite, video call invite, and text message. (Paragraph 1,15 multimedia applications and/or voice applications, call session with UE or chatbot)
With respect to claim 8, Somes teaches a method comprising: receiving a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message to transfer from an originating User Equipment (UE) to a terminating UE (Fig. 1A Paragraph 15 – SIP message 125 sent by UE 105-1 received by CSCF with intent of delivery to UE 105-2), and in response, determining a Uniform Resource Indicator (URI) and routing information for the SIP message based on E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) (Paragraph 7, 18- 20 – in this example, a determination is made based on included parameters of the SIP message, and a ENUM query of an E.164 number to URI mapping is used for routing the SIP message);
transferring the SIP message to a SIP system for the terminating UE based on the URI (Fig. 1a Paragraph 7, 18- 20 – in this example, a determination is made based on included parameters of the SIP message, and a ENUM query of an E.164 number to URI mapping is used for routing the SIP message, toward user device 105-2 step 135 ) ; and
receiving an error message from the SIP system for the terminating UE(Paragraph 9, notification indicating that the SIP message cannot be routed)
Somes does not explicitly disclose determining if retry is allowed based on the routing information and retransferring the SIP message to the SIP system for the terminating UE in response to the error message and determining that retry is allowed. Asveren teaches receiving an error message to the SIP message and determining if retry is allowed based on the routing information.The SIP message is retransferred if the retry is allowed (Col. 28 lines 46 – Col. 29 line 3 – a response to a SIP Invite message may be an error message – e.g. 503 response – and routing information can include retry determination message that determines whether a rejected invite should be resent to a different session controller or not. If allowed, a retry INVITE will be sent to another SBC in the cluster).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the SIP messaging of Somes include further responding error message (e.g. 503 response) and a determination of retry and retransferring as in Asveren. Using a known SIP response protocol error message to provide an indication of an error would have been obvious. Further, determination of retry is desirable to avoid overload situations and providing efficient and dynamic distribution of traffic (Asveren Col. 1 lines 42-61)
With respect to claim 9, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 8 wherein transferring and retransferring the SIP message comprises transferring the SIP message to a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) and retransferring the SIP message to a different CSCF. (Somes Paragraph 17 – CSCF may determine a destination address associated with an I-CSCF of another IMS network, based on performing the ENUM query. CSCF 115 may provide the SIP message to the I-CSCF to cause the I-CSCF to route the SIP message, such as to cause the I-CSCF to route the SIP message toward user device 105-2.)
With respect to claim 11, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 8 wherein: receiving the SIP message comprises a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) receiving the SIP message; and determining the URI and the routing information comprises an E.164 Number Mapping (ENUM) system determining the URI and the routing information. (Somes Paragraph 7, 18- 20 – in this example, a determination is made based on included parameters of the SIP message, and a ENUM query of an E.164 number to URI mapping is used for routing the SIP message).
With respect to claim 13, Somes as modified teaches the method of claim 8 wherein receiving and transferring the SIP message comprises an originating Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) receiving the SIP message from the originating UE and transferring the SIP message to a terminating IMS for the terminating UE. (Somes Paragraph 17 – another CSCF of another IMS network)
Claims 14, 16, 17 are similar in scope to claims 1, and 4-7 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
With respect to claim 18, Somes teaches the IP system of claim 14 wherein: the ENUM system is to identify a Session Border Controller (SBC); and the SIP system is to transfer the SIP message and the routing information to the SBC; and the SBC is to transfer the SIP message for delivery to the terminating UE based on the routing information. (Somes Paragraph 25, 29, interactions occur with a SBC)
With respect to claim 20, Somes teaches the IP system of claim 14 wherein: the SIP system comprises a Call Session Control Function (CSCF) (Fig 1a – CSCF 115); and the ENUM system comprises a Telephony Application Server (TAS). (Somes Paragraph 29 TAS)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 10, 12, 15, 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-3986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/DAVID R LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights