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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4, 8-10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner et al. (US Patent No. 6,754,310) in view of REIJONEN et al. (International Pub. No. WO2016070934A1).
Regarding claim 1, with respect to Figures 1-7, Steinbrenner teaches a method comprising:
managing a test of the quality of a telephone communication link between a terminal and a test server, the telephone communication link being able to be opened or closed (col.7, lines 25-30: “…..Power-On-Self-Test (POST)...") between a terminal and a server (col.6, lines 36-41: “…..the service provider network (PSTN network) 16 may preferably include the physical media and all the equipment (switches, servers, database systems, etc.) that are utilized in setting up telephone connections and calls initiated by (or terminated to) the POTS phones...");
the managing comprising:
triggering the terminal to send a request to the server to open the link (col.6, lines 57-63, : “…..The stored program also provides a means for communicating with network elements in the access network 14 and the service provider network 16 for establishing network connectivity……. setting up and tearing down connections...”); and
after triggering the terminal to send the request, managing the test with the test server when the link is open (col.6, lines 57-63: “…..The stored program also provides a means for communicating with network elements in the access network 14 and the service provider network 16 for establishing network connectivity……. setting up and tearing down connections...” and col.7, lines 49-61: “……the user hangs up a phone connected to the telephony interface device 12 and the hardware detects this event, an onhook event is generated. Therefore an onhook transition is ignored and the telephony interface device 12 remains in the POST In Progress state 51..."; figure 3, state diagram, element 51, the "Post in Progress" state has a duration necessary for completion of the test, during which the link is kept open).
However, Steinbrenner does not specifically teach that the server is a test server and the test is managed by the test server. REIJONEN teaches that the server is a test server and the test is managed by the test server (fig.7, step 720; page 13, lines 30-32). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinbrenner to incorporate the feature of the server is being a test server and the test is managed being by the test server in Steinbrenner’s invention as taught by REIJONEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order evaluate a quality of communication.
Regarding claim 2, STEINBRENNER teaches wherein, if an instruction to close the link is received during the given duration, execution of said instruction is postponed by another given duration (col.7, lines 49-61: “……the user hangs up a phone connected to the telephony interface device 12 and the hardware detects this event, an onhook event is generated. Therefore an onhook transition is ignored and the telephony interface device 12 remains in the POST In Progress state 51..."; figure 3, state diagram, element 51, the "Post in Progress" state has a duration necessary for completion of the test, during which the link is kept open).
Claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Steinbrenner teaches the link being an open telephone communication link between the terminal and the server, said link comprises a signaling channel allowing the server to obtain signaling-related information, and performance of the of the quality of the link by the server depends on the obtained signaling-related information (col.6, lines 57-63, col.7, lines 25-30, 49-61).
However, Steinbrenner does not specifically teach IP telephone communication link. REIJONEN teaches IP voice calls [i.e., IP telephone communication link] (page 5, lines 22-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinbrenner to incorporate the feature of IP telephone communication link in Steinbrenner’s invention as taught by REIJONEN. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to perform voice call quality test of an IP voice calls such that certain benefits can be achieved.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 3.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Steinbrenner teaches management entity comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory [i.e., non-transitory computer readable medium] comprising program [i.e., instructions] stored thereon which when executed by the at least one processor configure the management entity to manage a test (fig.3, 4; col.3, line 56-col.4, line 15, col.7, lines 34-48).
Regarding claim 9, STEINBRENNER teaches wherein the management entity is implemented in the terminal (col.7, lines 25-30, 49-61).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 8. Furthermore, Steinbrenner teaches the program comprising code instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of the management entity configure the management entity to; carry out the management method (col.3, line 56-col.4, line 15, col.7, lines 34-48).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, STEINBRENNER teaches wherein, while the test of the quality of the link is being carried out, said link is kept open, regardless of whether the terminal receives an instruction to close the link, for a given duration (col.7, lines 49-61: “……the user hangs up a phone connected to the telephony interface device 12 and the hardware detects this event, an onhook event is generated. Therefore an onhook transition is ignored and the telephony interface device 12 remains in the POST In Progress state 51..."; figure 3, state diagram, element 51, the "Post in Progress" state has a duration necessary for completion of the test, during which the link is kept open).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner et al. (US Patent No. US6,754310B1) in view of REIJONEN et al. (International Pub. No. WO2016070934A1) further in view of CHOI et al. (Korean Pub. No. KR20050060309A).
Claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 3. However, Steinbrenner in view of REIJONEN does not specifically teach that said link comprises a multimedia data transmission channel, the method comprises the terminal sending data packets in the channel independently of instructions received via an interface of the terminal. CHOI teaches that said channel [i.e., link] comprises a multimedia data transmission channel, the method comprises the multimedia receiver 22 [i.e., terminal] sending data packets in the channel independently of instructions received via an interface of the terminal (abstract; page 4, paragraph 6: “The multimedia receiver 22 classifies an IP packet input from the IP communication network 21 into n multimedia channels in layer 3 (L3), and buffers multimedia data for each classified channel. In layer 6 (L6), the multimedia data buffered for each channel is decoded according to a predetermined decoding rule to recover the multimedia data. Layer 7 (L7) transmits the recovered multimedia data of the channel selected by the application layer to the monitor (23).”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinbrenner in view of REIJONEN to incorporate the feature of said link comprising a multimedia data transmission channel, the method comprising the terminal sending data packets in the channel independently of instructions received via an interface of the terminal in Steinbrenner’s invention in view of REIJONEN’s invention as taught by CHOI. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a simultaneous picture service that can simultaneously provide a plurality of screens to the monitor of the subscriber conveniently.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbrenner et al. (US Patent No. US6,754310B1) in view of REIJONEN et al. (International Pub. No. WO2016070934A1) further in view of DuRee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,160,871).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Steinbrenner in view of REIJONEN does not specifically teach the terminal receiving, during the given duration, a message from the server and intended to be rendered by the terminal, wherein the message received by the terminal comprises information relating to the test carried out by the server. DuRee teaches the terminal receiving, during the given duration, a message from the server and intended to be rendered by the terminal, wherein the message received by the terminal comprises information relating to the test carried out by the server (col.2, lines 13-26: “the test system includes a web server. The web server transfers information for screen displays to the web browser. The web server collects user requests from the web browser to generate calls and run tests. "; col.5, lines 12-14: the server 111 sends a test menu to the GUI 101. The test menu allows the user to select tests to run on the call..."). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Steinbrenner in view of REIJONEN to incorporate the feature of the terminal receiving, during the given duration, a message from the server and intended to be rendered by the terminal, wherein the message received by the terminal comprises information relating to the test carried out by the server in Steinbrenner’s invention in view of REIJONEN’s invention as taught by DuRee. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide a particular message for performing a test efficiently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on 571-272-7547136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
September 15, 2026
