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 .
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior U.S. Application No. 17/380299 (now U.S. Patent No. 12143530), filed 20 July 2021, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63084745, filed 29 September 2020, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application constitutes as a continuation (see 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq).
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made in that all claims 1-20 have been amended in the instant application presented herein.
Applicants’ amendments to claims 2-11 obviate the previously raised objections. Thus, the claims’ objections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ remarks, see page 6 of Remarks, filed 21 July 2026, with respect to Claims 1-20 have been fully considered.
Applicants’ remarks, see pages 19 June 2026, with respect to Claims 1-20 have also been fully considered. See details below:
1) As per applicants remarks with respect to the 35 U.S.C 101 double-patenting rejection of claims 1-20. Examiner disagrees. Applicants’ terminal disclaimer filed on 19 June 2026 was disapproved (see below for details). Thus, the 35 U.S.C. 101 double-patenting rejection is hereby maintained.
2) As per applicants remarks with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner disagrees. Claim 11 as currently recited does not recite a corresponding structure to support the claimed collection module, analysis module, and correlation engine to achieve the functions performed. Thus, examiner is hereby noting that the claim is merely using generic place holders and is invoking 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (see below for formal analysis details).
3) As per applicants remarks with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection. Examiner agrees in view of applicants’ amendments to claims 1 and 11 as follows: “…correlating IP sessions having similar parameters to the collected parameters of the VolP session based at least in part on network latency and packet loss” and as persuasively remarked (see pages 6-8 of Remarks as filed). Thus, 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because:
This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The person who signed the terminal disclaimer filed on 19 June 2026 is not the applicant, the patentee or an attorney or agent of record. See 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
"a collection module, configured to collect...", "an analysis module, configured to collect...", and "a correlation engine, configured to correlate..." in claim 11.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see system 100 in pars [0059-0063] and fig. 5 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,143,530 (hereinafter as ‘530). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘530 anticipates all of the limitations of the instant application and the only differences are as follows:
U.S. PAT No. 12,143,530:
1. A method for handling Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) traffic flows on a computer network, the method comprising:
collecting traffic flow data with respect to an IP session;
collecting parameters associated with the IP session, where in the parameters comprise traffic flow bitmaps;
determining whether the IP session is a VoIP session;
correlating IP sessions having similar parameters to the collected parameters of the VOIP session based at least in part on the traffic flow bitmaps and on network latency and packet loss; and
creating at least one Internet Protocol Detail Record (IPDR) or Call Detail Record (CDR) based on the correlated IP session parameters.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
storing the parameters associated with the VOIP session;
receiving a request, from a third party device, to query the stored records based on a parameter of interest;
querying the stored parameters to determine at least one record matching with the parameter of interest; and
providing any results that match the parameter of interest, to the third party device.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein if there is more than one record matching the parameter of interest, providing an indication that a plurality of records match the parameter of interest.
4. The method of claim 2 wherein the parameters, comprise subscriber attributes, call start time, call end time, IP address, location, device information, and application type.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein a record is determined to be a match if the call start time and call end time are within a predetermined time interval of each other.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the predetermined time interval is based on the network latency.
7. The method of claim 2 wherein the third party device is associated with a law enforcement authority.
8. The method of claim 2, wherein storing the parameters associated with the VOIP comprises consolidating raw data to generate normalize the data.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a confidence level of the created record.
The method of claim 1, wherein the IP sessions originated from the same jurisdiction.
A system for handling Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP) traffic flows on a computer network, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in a memory component wherein the instructions provide for modules comprising:
a collection module configured to collect traffic flow data with respect to an IP session;
an analysis module configured to collect parameters associated with the IP session to determine whether the IP session is a VoIP session, wherein the parameters comprise traffic flow bitmasks; and
a correlation engine configured to correlate IP sessions having similar parameters to the collected parameters of the VOIP session based at least in part on the traffic flow bitmasks and on network latency and packet loss; and
create at least one Internet Protocol Detail Records (IPDR) or Call Detail Records (CDR) based on the correlated IP session parameters.
12. The system according to claim 11, further comprising:
a memory component configured to store the parameters associated with the VoIP session, and a query module configured to receive a request, from a third party device, to query the stored records based on a parameter of interest, query the stored parameters to determine at least one record matching with the parameter of interest; and
provide any results that match the parameter of interest, to the third party device.
The system of claim 12, wherein the third party device is associated with a law enforcement authority.
14. The system of claim 13, wherein the query module is configured to provide an indication that a plurality of records match the parameter of interest if there is more than one record matching the parameter of interest.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the parameters comprise subscriber attributes, call start time, call end time and application type.
16. The system of claim 15, wherein a record is determined to be a match if the call start time and call end time are within a predetermined time interval of each other.
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the predetermined time interval is based on the network latency.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the IP sessions originated from the same jurisdiction.
19. The system of claim 13, wherein the analysis module is configured to consolidate raw data to generate normalize the data.
20. The system of claim 11, wherein the correlation engine is further configured to determine a confidence level of the created record.
U.S. AP No. 18/944793 (Instant Application):
1. A method for handling Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) traffic flows on a computer network, the method comprising:
collecting traffic flow data with respect to an IP session;
collecting parameters associated with the IP session,
determining whether the IP session is a VoIP session;
correlating IP sessions having similar parameters to the collected parameters of the VoIP session based at least in part on latency and packet loss; and
creating at least one Internet Protocol Detail Record (IPDR) or Call Detail Record (CDR) based on the correlated IP session parameters.
2. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
storing the parameters associated with the VoIP session;
receiving a request, from a third party device, to query the stored records based on a parameter of interest;
querying the stored parameters to determine at least one record matching with the parameter of interest; and
providing any results that match the parameter of interest, to the third party device.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein if there is more than one record matching the parameter of interest, providing an indication that a plurality of records match the parameter of interest.
4. The method according to claim 2 wherein the parameters comprise subscriber attributes, call start time, call end time, IP address, location, device information, traffic flow bitmask, and application type.
5. The method according to claim 4 wherein a record is determined to be a match if the call start time and call end time are within a predetermined time interval of each other.
6. The method according to claim 5 wherein the predetermined time interval is based on the network latency.
7. The method according to claim 2 wherein the third party device is associated with a law enforcement authority.
8. The method according to claim 2, wherein storing the parameters associated with the VoIP comprises consolidating raw data to generate normalize the data.
9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising determining a confidence level of the created record.
10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the IP sessions originated from the same jurisdiction.
11.A system for handling Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) traffic flows on a computer network, the system comprising:
a collection module configured to collect traffic flow data with respect to an IP session;
an analysis module configured to collect parameters associated with the IP session;
a correlation engine module configured to correlate IP sessions having similar parameters to the collected parameters of the VoIP session based at least in part on network latency and packet loss; and
create at least one Internet Protocol Detail Records (IPDR) or Call Detail Records (CDR) based on the correlated IP session parameters.
12. The system according to claim 11, further comprising:
a memory component configured to store the parameters associated with the VoIP session; anda query module configured to receive a request, from a third party device, to query the stored records based on a parameter of interest, query the stored parameters to determine at least one record matching with the parameter of interest; and
provide any results that match the parameter of interest, to the third party device.
17. The system according to claim 12, wherein the third party device is associated with a law enforcement authority.
13. The system according to claim 11, wherein the query module is configured to provide an indication that a plurality of records match the parameter of interest if there is more than one record matching the parameter of interest.
14. The system according to claim 11, wherein the parameters comprise subscriber attributes, call start time, call end time and application type.
15. The system according to claim 14, wherein a record is determined to be a match if the call start time and call end time are within a predetermined time interval of each other.
16. The system according to claim 15, wherein the predetermined time interval is based on the network latency.
18. The system according to claim 11, wherein the IP sessions originated from the same jurisdiction.
19. The system according to claim 11, wherein the analysis module is configured to consolidate raw data to generate normalize the data.
20. The system according to claim 11, wherein the correlation engine is further configured to determine a confidence level of the created record.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to collect and correlate traffic flow bitmaps. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motived to improve normalization of traffic flow data used for the correlations.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANTHONY MEJIA whose telephone number is (571)270-3630. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30 AM-6:30 PM EST.
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, CHRISTOPHER PARRY can be reached on (571)272-8328. 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.
/ANTHONY MEJIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights