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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0243702 A1), hereinafter “Fur” in view of Sudou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0159611 A1), hereinafter “Sud”.
As to claim 1. Fur disclose, a management server (Fur, fig.1, element-100) comprising:
a storage unit configured to store communication device information indicating identification information of communication device (Fur, [0055-0057], a management server including a storage unit storing communication device information), and
accommodation rule information indicating, for the each group, an accommodation rule indicating a rule in performing re-accommodation of communication of a user between the communication devices in the group together with a priority in applying the accommodation rule (Fur, [0008], [0049], create list information including one or more combination of frequency information and transmission power information. The frequency management server generates information regarding an available frequency band every time the frequency management server receives a generation request.);
a reception unit configured to receive an input of the identification information of the communication device (Fur, [0054], table 2 [0047], a reception unit receiving identification information of a communication device.);
a re-accommodation destination selection unit configured to select the communication device to serve as a re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user from among the communication devices belonging to the group by applying the accommodation rule of the group to which the communication device targeted for re-accommodation belongs in descending order of priority (Fur, [0049], the frequency management server generates information regarding an available frequency band based on location information. [0058], the processing unit 130 provides various functions including acquiring unit 131, creating unit 132, re-creation judging unit 133. [0061] the acquiring unit 131 acquires location information from a message received from the portable communication device 200.); and
a re-accommodation execution unit configured to change an accommodation destination for the communication of the user to the selected communication device (Fur, [0008], a notification unit configured to notify the communication device of the recreated list information. [0046], the spectrum database transmits avail_spectrum_resp including frequency utilization rule information.).
Fur however does not disclose, grouping of communication devices; accommodation rules; priority ordered rule application; selecting a destination communication device and executing re-accomodation.
Sud however discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, grouping communication devices (Sud, [0042], The acceleration sensors 162 include an acceleration sensor that detects acceleration applied to the communication device 100.);
Accommodation rules defining conditions for selecting a target device (Sud, [0051], When the collection mode is configured, the processor 130 causes the output device 180 to start outputting at least one of sound or light.);
Applying rules in priority order (Sud, [0053], Note that a high-precision positioning may be applied by combining the position sensor 161 and the signal received by the communication interface 120.);
Selecting a destination device based on the applied rules (Sud, [0061], The processor 320 configures the collection mode for collecting at least one of the communication devices 100 managed by the management server 300 as installed devices. The processor 320 may configure the collection mode based on information received from the management terminal 400 by the communication interface 310.); and
Executing re-accommodation via handover (Sud, [0064], In a case that the collection mode is not configured, in response to determining that the communication device 100 has been stationary after moving, based on the installation notification message received by the communication interface 310, the processor 320 updates the position information list to add position information indicating the position of the communication device 100 in a stationary state, to the list as installation position information.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate Sud’s rule bases, priority ordered device selection and re-accommodation mechanism into Fur’s management server to improve device selection and communication continuity.
As to claims 7 and 8 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0243702 A1), hereinafter “Fur” in view of Sudou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0159611 A1), hereinafter “Sud” and further in view of RFC 4951, hereinafter “RFC”.
As to claim 2. The combined system of Fur and Sud disclose the invention substantially as applied above. Fur and Sud however are silent to disclose explicitly,
a rule in which the communication devices to be paired in the same group are given, and in a case where any one of the communication devices to be paired is the communication device targeted for re-accommodation for the communication of the user, the other communication device to be paired is selected as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user.
RFC discloses, a rule in which the communication devices to be paired in the same group are given (RFC, pages, 4-5, section 1.1, 2; the active endpoint and backup endpoint form a preassigned redundant pair. The backup’s synchronized tunnel/session database establishes the operational pairing.), and in a case where any one of the communication devices to be paired is the communication device targeted for re-accommodation for the communication of the user (RFC, pages, 4-5, section 1.1, 2; Failed endpoint: the endpoint that was the active endpoint at the time of the failure, the active member of the pair becomes the failed/source endpoint requiring recovery/reaccommodation.), the other communication device to be paired is selected as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user RFC, pages, 7, 11-12, section 3.2, 3.3; “the recovery tunnel could be torn down after that, and session that were established resume traffic”. Supports re-establishment of active user communications at the designated recovery endpoint. “Session state synchronization allows the two endpoints to agree on the state of the various sessions in the tunnel after failover”, supports preservation/recovery of session state after the standby endpoint assumes responsibility.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “RFC” e.g., active /backup endpoint failover mechanism into “Fur and Sud” e.g., group based communication re-accommodation system, when an active endpoint fails, a preconfigured backup endpoint becomes the recovery and active endpoint, recovers established tunnels/sessions, and permits those sessions to resume traffic.
As to claims 9 and 14 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuichi et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0243702 A1), hereinafter “Fur” in view of Sudou et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0159611 A1), hereinafter “Sud” and further in view of Price et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0026304 A1), hereinafter “Price” and further in view of Kevin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2009/0274286 A1), hereinafter “Kevin”.
As to claim 3. The combined system of Fur and Sud disclose the invention substantially as applied above. Fur and Sud however, are silent to disclose explicitly,
information of a model of each of the communication devices, and the accommodation rule includes:
a rule of selecting the communication device of a latest model among the communication devices of the group to which the communication device targeted for re-accommodation belongs as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user.
Price discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, information of a model of each of the communication devices, and the accommodation rule (Price, [0007], determine the currently operating software contents and versions for each device,).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Price” into those of “Fur and Sud” to provide a system to keep track of the lates devices database to improve the process of updating software version accordingly.
Fur, Sud and Price however, are silent to disclose explicitly, a rule of selecting the communication device of a latest model among the communication devices of the group to which the communication device targeted for re-accommodation belongs as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user.
Kevin discloses in the same field of endeavor including, a rule of selecting the communication device of a latest model among the communication devices of the group to which the communication device targeted for re-accommodation belongs as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user (Keven, [0008-0012], communication target selection based on weighted/ordered criteria intended to improve the prospect of successful communication.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Kevin” into those of “Fur, Sud and Price” to select the best possible device for guaranteed communication with the end user. Such communication is possible with a communications device capable of communicating via any one of a number of communication modes comprises a mode comparator configured to determine which of the available modes is likely to be most appropriate for selection when initiating communication with a destination call party based at least in part on availability status data representative of a state of availability of the destination call party.
As to claims 10 and 15 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fur and Sud” as applied above, in view of Kompella et al. (Patent No.: US 8848514 B2), hereinafter “Kom”.
As to claim 4. The combined system of Fur and Sud disclose the invention substantially as applied above. Fur and Sud however, are silent to disclose explicitly,
information of a place where the communication device is installed, and the accommodation rule includes:
a rule of selecting the communication device installed at a place different from the place where the communication device targeted for re-accommodation is installed among the communication devices of the group to which the communication device targeted for re- accommodation belongs as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user.
Kom discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, information of a place where the communication device is installed, and the accommodation rule includes:
a rule of selecting the communication device installed at a place different from the place where the communication device targeted for re-accommodation is installed among the communication devices of the group to which the communication device targeted for re- accommodation belongs as the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user (Kom, fig.3, col.9, lines 35-47, geographic/site diversity, uses a geo redundant backup/protect communication gateway as the destination for UE communication session. Fur and Sud disclose the management server architecture, grouped based re-accommodation, priority rule processing and resource based fallback.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “Kom” into those of “Fur and Sud” to provide a geographic diversity to re-accommodation destination selection rule in order to avoid common mode failures caused by a local power interruption, site outage, access network failure etc.
As to claims 11 and 16 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fur and Sud” as applied above, in view of RFC 4171, hereinafter “RFC71”
As to claim 5. The combined system of Fur and Sud disclose the invention substantially as applied above. Fur and Sud however, are silent to disclose explicitly,
applies the accommodation rule in descending order of priority, and selects the communication device to serve as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user in a case of being able to select the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user according to the applied accommodation rule, and applies the accommodation rule having the second highest priority after the accommodation rule in a case of not being able to select the communication device.
RFC71 discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, applies the accommodation rule in descending order of priority, and selects the communication device to serve as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user in a case of being able to select the communication device as the re-accommodation destination for the communication of the user according to the applied accommodation rule, and applies the accommodation rule having the second highest priority after the accommodation rule in a case of not being able to select the communication device (RFC71, 5.1, uses an ordered list of backup server IP addresses and assigns relative backup precedence based on the server’s ordinal position. First listed backup has precedence 1; third listed backup has precedence 3. Second 5.2 teaches a backup server becomes active when the conditions for it to take over are met. Section 5.2 teaches a lower precedence backup does not take over while a higher precedence backup remains available. Section 5.4 discloses, the ordered server list and condition that the candidate confirm loss of higher precedence alternatives permits takeover by the first still eligible backup candidate.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “RFC71” into those of “Fur and Sud” to provide a descending priority sequence to evaluate the highest priority rules first, select the destination device if it satisfies that rule and if no eligible device is available, evaluate the next rule. This would improve service continuity while preserving preferred selections such as a same group device, a location diverse device or a more capable device, whatever available.
As to claims 12 and 17 are rejected for same rationale as applied to claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fur and Sud” as applied above, in view of RFC 5352, hereinafter “RFC52”.
As to claim 19. The combined system of Fur and Sud disclose the invention substantially as applied above. Fur and Sud however, are silent to disclose explicitly, wherein the communication device that accommodates the user's communication is flexibly controlled.
RFC52 discloses a similar concept in the same field of endeavor including, wherein the communication device that accommodates the user's communication is flexibly controlled (RFC52, sections: 1, 2.2.5-2.2.6, 2.2.12-2.2.13, 3.1 and 6.5.2/6.9 these sections explicitly teach dynamically selecting, changing, and failing over among service devices in a pool.).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of the skilled in the art to incorporate the teachings of “RFC52” into those of “Fur and Sud” to provide a dynamic pool based endpoint control to improve service availability, fault tolerance, load distribution and scalability, thereby allowing the communication device accommodating the user’s communication to be flexibly changed as device availability or pool membership changes.
As to claim 20. The combined system of Fun, Sud and RFC5352 disclose the invention substantially as applied above including, wherein if it is determined that re- accommodation cannot be performed based on an existing priority key and the accommodation rule, the communication is re-accommodated to a communication device that has a most available open resource (RFC52, section 1 page.9, when multiple receiver instances exist under the same handle (server pool), an ASAP endpoint will select one pool element based on the current load sharing policy indicated by the server pool and deliver its message to the selected pool element.).
Examiner note: Claims 6, 13 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAUQIR HUSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 - 8:00 with IFP.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at 571 272-7304. 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.
/Tauqir Hussain/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
