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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites, "computer-readable media..." in line 1. The specification recites “[00011] Embodiments of the technology may take the form of, among other things: a method, system, or set of instructions embodied on one or more computer-readable media. Computer-readable media include both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and nonremovable media…”
Therefore, the claim term “computer-readable media” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) covers signals. A transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03. A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests amending claims 15-20 to recite "non-transitory" to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. In addition, the preamble of claim 15 does not recite the instructions are executed by a processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-2 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al., US 2014/0297879 hereafter Gao.
As for claim 1, Gao discloses:
A method for providing an adhoc location-based service framework, the method comprising:
receiving a request for information at an application programming interface (API) that enables a requestor to query a Proxy Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) (Gao, Fig. 6 steps 1-6, [0102] 1) an internet user initiates a registration request, using the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol; [0103] 2) an SBC forwards the registration request, using the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol; [0104] 3) a P-CSCF converts the registration message of the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol into SIP REGISTER;);
in response to the request, querying the P-CSCF for information corresponding to a user device (UE) (Fig. 6, [0102]-[0104], In response to receiving the registration request in step 1, in step 2 an SBC forwards the registration request, using the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol; step 3) a P-CSCF converts the registration message of the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol into SIP REGISTER); and
providing the information to the requestor (Gao, [0106] 5) the P-CSCF converts 401 into a registration failure response of the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol; [0107] 6) the SBC forwards the registration failure response of the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol to the internet user).
As for claims 2 and 16, Gao discloses the information is received by the P-CSCF during Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) registration. (Gao, [0104] 3) a P-CSCF converts the registration message of the HTTP or SOAP or Web2.0 protocol into SIP REGISTER)
As for claim 15, this claim is analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because the corresponding method claim 1 can be used to practice computer-readable media method of claim 15.
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.
4. Claim(s) 3-5 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al., US 2014/0297879 hereafter Gao in view of Mirza et al., US 11,483,684 hereafter Mirza.
As for claims 3 and 17, Gao does not explicitly disclose the information is a confirmation that a particular user corresponding to the UE is in a particular location.
However, Mirza discloses the information is a confirmation that a particular user corresponding to the UE is in a particular location (Mirza, FIG. 1, 126, column 8 lines 47-60, This PGW mapping table 126 may be stored locally at the P-CSCF node 106 (e.g., in local memory of the P-CSCF node 106), and/or at a remote storage location that is remote from (e.g., external to, geographically remote from, etc.) the P-CSCF node 106. The PGW mapping table 126 is a tool that the P-CSCF node 106 can use to determine where the session associated with the UE 100 resides… By extracting the UE identifier (e.g., IP address) from the contact header of the SIP request (e.g., the SIP request 110), the P-CSCF node 106 can use the extracted UE identifier to look up, in the PGW mapping table 126, which PGW 116 is associated with the UE's 100 session. In some examples, the PGW mapping table 126 informs the P-CSCF node 106 as to a particular UE identifier that is in the subnet of a specific PGW 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gao with the information is a confirmation that a particular user corresponding to the UE is in a particular location as taught by Mirza for avoiding a dropped call scenario or triggering a CS fallback procedure (Mirza, column 2 lines 18-24).
As for claims 4 and 18, Gao does not explicitly disclose the information is a list of users in a particular location.
However, Mirza discloses the information is a list of users in a particular location (Mirza, FIG. 1, 126, column 8 lines 47-60, This PGW mapping table 126 may be stored locally at the P-CSCF node 106 (e.g., in local memory of the P-CSCF node 106), and/or at a remote storage location that is remote from (e.g., external to, geographically remote from, etc.) the P-CSCF node 106. The PGW mapping table 126 is a tool that the P-CSCF node 106 can use to determine where the session associated with the UE 100 resides… By extracting the UE identifier (e.g., IP address) from the contact header of the SIP request (e.g., the SIP request 110), the P-CSCF node 106 can use the extracted UE identifier to look up, in the PGW mapping table 126, which PGW 116 is associated with the UE's 100 session. In some examples, the PGW mapping table 126 informs the P-CSCF node 106 as to a particular UE identifier that is in the subnet of a specific PGW 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gao with the information is a list of users in a particular location as taught by Mirza for avoiding a dropped call scenario or triggering a CS fallback procedure (Mirza, column 2 lines 18-24).
As for claim 5, Goa does not explicitly disclose the P-CSCF maintains a mapping of users and locations.
However, Mirza discloses the P-CSCF maintains a mapping of users and locations (Mirza, FIG. 1, 126, column 8 lines 47-60, This PGW mapping table 126 may be stored locally at the P-CSCF node 106 (e.g., in local memory of the P-CSCF node 106). The PGW mapping table 126 is a tool that the P-CSCF node 106 can use to determine where the session associated with the UE 100 resides… By extracting the UE identifier (e.g., IP address) from the contact header of the SIP request (e.g., the SIP request 110), the P-CSCF node 106 can use the extracted UE identifier to look up, in the PGW mapping table 126, which PGW 116 is associated with the UE's 100 session. In some examples, the PGW mapping table 126 informs the P-CSCF node 106 as to a particular UE identifier that is in the subnet of a specific PGW 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gao with the P-CSCF maintains a mapping of users and locations as taught by Mirza for avoiding a dropped call scenario or triggering a CS fallback procedure (Mirza, column 2 lines 18-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 8-14 are allowed.
6. Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are 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
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Trossen, US 2004/0260819 [0039] After attempting to match the caller (e.g., requester 12) with an authorized subscriber in the list of authorized subscribers, the filter 22 can send a response message 82 back to SIP proxy 20 indicating whether the filter located a match. Like message 80, the response message 82 can be forwarded to SIP proxy 20 in accordance with any of a number of different techniques, such as within an HTTP POST requestor in accordance with SOAP. If the filter located a match for the requester, SIP proxy 20 can forward the original SUBSCRIBE message 78 to the SIP event server 14 (i.e., callee).
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENEE HOLLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-7196. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, IAN MOORE can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
JENEE HOLLAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/JENEE HOLLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights