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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 14th, 2025 and May 12th 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of extra wording “FIGURE 3” included on the Abstract page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrasing of the limitation “in response to that data in the response indicates that...” makes it unclear if it is the received response or a new generated response that is indicating the described data. Examiner suggests rephrasing the limitation such that it reads: “receiving a response to the inquiry, wherein the response indicates that the destination address of the call belongs to the number of destination addresses that are to be handled in accordance with the special procedure; generating in response to the received response, a control signal to a core network…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yau (U.S. Publication No. US 10834571 B1, as cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1,
Yau teaches A method for managing a call originating from a roaming terminal device, the call is implemented with IP Multimedia Subsystem based communication protocol
("In telecommunication networks, there are two roaming scenarios: home-routed and local breakout (LBO). FIGS. 1-2 pertain to home-routed roaming scenario, while FIGS. 3-4 pertain to LBO scenario." [Column 5, lines 61 - 64], and
"In the manner described above, the present invention fully complies with the security design and requirements for N32 signaling communications between VPLMN 14 and HPLMN 12. Patch-Request (modifications-block) 58 is specified in 3GPP TS29.573 and can be implemented by HTTP/2 Proxy 42 in IPX network 40.”[Column 12, line 66 – Column 13, line 4],
i.e. 3GPP includes IMS based communication protocols.)
the method, performed by a call management function, comprises: obtaining a destination address of the call
("HTTP/2 Proxy 42 extracts Public Land Mobile Network Identity (PLMN-ID) of VPLMN 14, wherein PLMN-ID comprises Mobile Country Code (MCC) and Mobile Network Code (MNC) of VPLMN 14. " [Column 7, lines 10-14],
i.e. Destination address can be obtained from the PLMN-ID, along with other relevant information.)
generating an inquiry to data storage arranged to store a number of destination addresses that are to be handled in accordance with a special procedure, the inquiry carrying data descriptive of the destination address of the call
("Next, SoR Application Logic Module 44 queries a Roaming Partner Database 46 to determine whether the extracted PLMN-ID belongs to a preferred or a non-preferred roaming partner of HPLMN 12." [Column 7, lines 14 -17],
i.e. "Preferred" roaming partners can be interpreted as the destination addresses that are handled in accordance with a special procedure.)
receiving a response to the inquiry
("Upon receipt of N32 authentication request message 56, HTTP/2 Proxy 42 extracts the PLMN-ID (MCC/MNC) of VPLMN" [Colum 9, lines 63-65])
generating, in response to that data in the response indicates that the destination address of the call belongs to the number of destination addresses that are to be handled in accordance with the special procedure, a control signal to a core network of a visited communication network the terminal device is roaming, the control signal carrying data causing an instruction to the core network of the visited communication network to route the call by the visited communication network serving the roaming terminal device to the destination address
("If HTTP/2 Proxy 42 determines that N32 authentication request message 56 originated from VPLMN 14 that is a preferred roaming partner, HTTP/2 Proxy 42 simply forwards N32 authentication request message 56 to hSEPP 36." [column 8, lines 33-37])
Regarding claim 2, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 1.
Yau also teaches the destination address is a phone number of a recipient of the call.
("HTTP/2 Proxy 42 extracts Public Land Mobile Network Identity (PLMN-ID) of VPLMN 14, wherein PLMN-ID comprises Mobile Country Code (MCC) and Mobile Network Code (MNC) of VPLMN 14. " [Column 7, lines 10-14],
i.e. Destination address can be obtained from the PLMN-ID, including information related to a phone number.)
Regarding claim 3, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 1.
Yau also teaches determining, from the data in the response, the special procedure to be applied with respect to the call
("Next, SoR Application Logic Module 44 queries a Roaming Partner Database 46 to determine whether the extracted PLMN-ID belongs to a preferred or a non-preferred roaming partner of HPLMN 12." [Column 7, lines 14 -17],
i.e. "Preferred" roaming partners can be interpreted as the destination addresses that are handled in accordance with a special procedure.)
Regarding claim 4, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 1.
Yau also teaches the special procedure is a routing of the call to the destination address with a Local BreakOut in the visited network the terminal device is roaming
("In telecommunication networks, there are two roaming scenarios: home-routed and local breakout (LBO). FIGS. 1-2 pertain to home-routed roaming scenario, while FIGS. 3-4 pertain to LBO scenario." [Column 5, lines 61 - 64])
Regarding claim 5, Yau also teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 5 in claim 1, in device mode rather than method mode. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 5. Yau also teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 6 in claim 2, in device mode rather than method mode. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 and 5.
Regarding claim 7, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 5. Yau also teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 7 in claim 3, in device mode rather than method mode. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 and 5.
Regarding claim 8, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 5. Yau also teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 8 in claim 4, in device mode rather than method mode. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 9, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 9 in claim 1, in device mode rather than method mode.
Yau also teaches a terminal device
("FIG. 1 depicts a User Equipment (UE) 10, which can be a smartphone, a computer, a connected vehicle, an internet of things (IoT) device, or any other device configured to communicate via a telecommunications network." [Column 5, line 66 – Column 6, line 3]),
a home communication network of a subscription of the terminal device, a visited communication network serving the terminal device as a roaming subscriber, a call management function for managing a call originating from the terminal device,
("In telecommunication networks, there are two roaming scenarios: home-routed and local breakout (LBO). FIGS. 1-2 pertain to home-routed roaming scenario, while FIGS. 3-4 pertain to LBO scenario." [Column 5, lines 61 - 64])
the call is implemented with IP Multimedia Subsystem based communication protocol
("In the manner described above, the present invention fully complies with the security design and requirements for N32 signaling communications between VPLMN 14 and HPLMN 12. Patch-Request (modifications-block) 58 is specified in 3GPP TS29.573 and can be implemented by HTTP/2 Proxy 42 in IPX network 40.” [Column 12, line 66 – Column 13, line 4]
i.e. 3GPP includes IMS based communication protocols.)
Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 9.
Yau also teaches the communication system further comprises: IP exchange at least for implementing signaling between the home communication network and the visited communication network.
("In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 5, the invention pertains to a scenario in which HPLMN 12 and VPLMN 14 are interconnected via an Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX) network 40. [Column 6, lines 61-64])
Regarding claim 10, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 9.
Yau also teaches the call management function is implemented in at least one of the following: a core network of the home communication network, a core network of the visited communication network, the IP exchange.
("In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 5, the invention pertains to a scenario in which HPLMN 12 and VPLMN 14 are interconnected via an Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX) network 40. [Column 6, lines 61-64])
Regarding claim 12, Yau teaches all the limitations and motivations of claim 12 in claim 1, with CRM rather than in method mode.
Yau also teaches A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein, the program code instructions being configured, when the computer program product is executed on a computer
(“Thus, the methods and system described herein, or certain aspects or portions thereof, can take the form of program code (i.e., instructions) embodied in tangible media, such as hard drives, solid state drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium, wherein, when the program code is loaded into and executed by a machine, such as a computing device, the machine becomes an apparatus for practicing the invention.” [Column 13, lines 29-37]).
Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (U.S. Publication No. US 20220167185 A1) suggests database containing phone numbers and information related to determining special procedures associated with the sent phone number, as well as teaching LBO architecture.
Corona (U.S. Publication No. US 20180124124 A1) teaches IPX in communication with home communication network and visited communication network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATIHA KAMAL whose telephone number is (571)270-0726. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30am - 3:30pm, Alternating Fridays 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
/FATIHA KAMAL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/Alison Slater/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights