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 .
This office correspondence is in response to the application filed on May 6, 2025. Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 19-21 are amended, and claims 4-6, and 14 are canceled as per preliminary amendment dated on 05/06/2025.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-24 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2025 was filed with the mailing date of the instant application. The submission is 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (Statutory Categories)
The four categories of statutory subject matter are: (1) a process, (2) a machine, (3) a manufacture and (4) a composition of matter. MPEP § 2106.03.
These claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
Independent claims 1, 7, 15, 19, and 20-24, recite a series of steps and, therefore, is a process that are directed to the abstract idea because they cover the concepts of a mental process (process in the human mind) including grouping of certain methods of observing, organizing human activity. Hence, the steps in the independent claims fall within the mental process grouping of abstract idea.
Claims 1, 7, 15, 19, and 20-21 are directed to an apparatus, a system, a method, or a non-transitory computer readable medium and the underlying invention is merely handling call services, and is therefore an abstract idea (Analysis: Step 2A-Prong 1). The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The underlying invention is merely handling call services from a calling device, and is therefore an abstract idea. The claim recites the limitation of receiving, storing, and transmitting user information. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (e.g. receiving, storing, and transmitting related data). There is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, transmitting information indicating properties of the computing resources, the claim encompasses simply transmitting information of resources in his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic performance and does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The claim recites additional elements of receiving the call initiation message to determine associated user information, and followed by the obtaining and transmitting information step. The claims do not recite any limitations that improve the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering information to use in the transmitting step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 2019-01-07 13 The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (2A – Prong 2).
Therefore, claim fails to provide an inventive concept (2B). As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication other than a generic, off the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐ understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving and transmitting steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Claims 2-3, 8-13, 16-18, and 22-24 recites further collection of properties of the user information. The information collected do not add any significant more to the Judicial Exception as they do not add any improvement to the computer system or a technology field. Hence, the claims do not add significant more.
In light of the explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is directed in view of those case laws are directed towards the abstract idea. Lacking significantly more for the remainder of the claim, the invention is nothing more than an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13, and 15-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crassous et al. (US Publication 2009/0119699) hereafter Crassous, in view of Bienas et al. (US Publication 2011/0188446) hereafter Bienas.
As per claim 1, Crassous discloses a method for handling a call from a calling device, the method comprising: receiving a call initiation message for setting up a call between the calling device and a callee device, the call initiation message comprising a user identity (paragraphs 4-6: IPTV service and obtain the addresses of the channels of the user subscription); obtaining user information associated with the user identity (paragraphs 70-76: database containing the profile of the user in terms of the services subscribed to); and after receiving the call initiation message, determining whether the user information associated with the user identity indicates that use of a third-party (paragraphs 40, 76-77) is authorized. Although, Crassous discloses session identifier and accessing the channel to the user terminal, but fails to expressly disclose the user identity indicates that use of a third-party, identifier (3P ID) is authorized.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bienas discloses the claimed limitation of the user identity indicates that use of a third-party identifier (3P ID) is authorized (paragraphs 61, 101-102).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the invention of Bienas use of registering IMS user identity with teaching of Crassous. One would be motivated to identify authenticated call initiator accordingly to the requested information to establish the session with a particular channel.
As per claim 2, Crassous discloses the method wherein obtaining the user information comprises pulling the user information from a subscriber server during a registration procedure for registering the user identity (paragraphs 77, 80-81).
As per claim 3, Crassous discloses the method wherein the user information comprises a private user identity, the user information further comprises a first 3P indicator value associated with the private user identity, and the step of determining whether the user information associated with the user identity comprises determining whether the first 3P allowed indicator value indicates that use of a 3P ID (paragraphs 77, 80-81).. Although, Crassous discloses session identifier and accessing the channel to the user terminal, but fails to expressly disclose first 3P allowed indicator value associated with the private user identity, and the user identity indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized and whether the first 3P allowed indicator value indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized or not. Although, Crassous discloses session identifier and accessing the channel to the user terminal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bienas discloses the claimed limitation of the first 3P allowed indicator value associated with the private user identity, and the user identity indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized and whether the first 3P allowed indicator value indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized or not (paragraphs 61, 101-102).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 3.
Claim 7 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
As per claim 8, Crassous discloses the IMS subsystem entity wherein the process further comprises: prior to receiving the call initiation message, obtaining the user information from a subscriber server (paragraphs 70-76, 86).
Claim 9 is listed all the same elements of claims 3. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 3 apply equally as well to claim 9.
As per claim 10, Crassous discloses the IMS subsystem entity wherein the user identity is a public user identity, the user information further comprises the public user identity, the user information further comprises a second 3P allowed indicator value associated with the public user identity, and the step of determining whether the user information associated with the user identity indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized (paragraphs 40, 70, 76-77). Although, Crassous discloses session identifier and accessing the channel to the user terminal, but fails to expressly disclose further comprises determining whether the se 3P allowed indicator value indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized or not.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bienas discloses the claimed limitation of further comprises determining whether the se 3P allowed indicator value indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized or not (paragraphs 61, 101-102).
The same motivation that was utilized in the combination of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
As per claim 11, Crassous discloses the IMS subsystem entity wherein the user identity is a public user identity, the user information comprises the public user identity, the step of determining whether the user information associated with the user identity indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized comprises determining whether the user information further comprises a display name associated with the public user identity (paragraphs 70-76, 104).
As per claim 12, Crassous discloses the IMS subsystem entity wherein the step of determining whether the user information associated with the user identity indicates that use of a 3P ID is authorized comprises determining whether the user information further comprises a display name set to a particular value (paragraphs 77, 80-81).
As per claim 13, Crassous discloses the IMS subsystem entity wherein the IMS subsystem entity is a Server - Call Session Control Function or the IMS subsystem entity is a telephony application server (paragraphs 70, 81).
Claim 15 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1. In addition, transmitting to the IMS subsystem entity a response message responsive to the request message, wherein the response message comprises the user information (Crassous: paragraphs 70-76, 86).
As per claim 16, Crassous discloses the method wherein the user information further comprises a private user identity, and the first 3P allowed indicator value is associated with the private user identity (paragraphs 40, 77, 80-81).
As per claim 17, Crassous discloses the method wherein the user information further comprises a public user identity, and the first 3P allowed indicator value is associated with the public user identity (paragraphs 77, 80-81).
As per claim 18, Crassous discloses the method wherein the user information further comprises a private user identity, the user information further comprises a first public user identity, the user information further comprises a second public user identity, the first 3P allowed indicator value is associated with the public user identity, a second 3P allowed indicator value is associated with the private user identity, the second 3P allowed indicator value indicates that 3P IDs are allowed for the second public user identity, and the first 3P allowed indicator value indicates that 3P IDs are not allowed for the first public user identity (paragraphs 70-77, 80-81).
Claim 19 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 1.
Claim 20 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 15.
Claim 21 is an Independent claim with similar limitation but different in preamble and hence are rejected based on the rejection provided in claim 15.
Claims 22-24 are listed all the same elements of claims 16-18, respectively. Therefore, the supporting rationales of the rejection to claims 22-24 apply equally as well to claims 16-18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van Elburg et al. (US Publication 2012/0011273) discloses facilitating access to services of an IP Multimedia Subsystem, by users groups that require alternative handling in relation to the standard handling of IP Multimedia Subsystem users. Functioning instructions are added to the user groups subscription maintained in the IP Multimedia Subsystem, instructing nodes in the IP Multimedia Subsystem to adapt their standard functioning for this specific group of users. The instructions in a subscription of a specific user group, provide a node of the IP Multimedia Subsystem that does no longer need to be specific for certain types of users, but has a standard way of operation, that is modified by instructions for dedicated operation for only that specific user group. In further aspect embodiments are disclosed providing improved solutions for known problems of IP Multimedia Subsystems making use of functioning instructions included in the subscription.
Przybysz et al. (US Publication 20130081123) discloses enabling users of a third party Internet service, who are not necessarily subscribers of an IP Multimedia Subsystem, IMS, network, to access services provided by the IMS network. The method comprises registering a user with said third party Internet service via the Internet using an Internet service identity of the user, and sending to the user, from said third party Internet service and via the Internet, IMS network access information. The access information is then used to register the user with the IMS network, wherein, following IMS registration, the user is able to access IMS network services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA B HUQ whose telephone number is (571)270-3223. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30-5:30 ET.
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 L 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.
/FARZANA B HUQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights