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
This action is responsive to the application filed on May 16th 2025.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on 5/16/2025, where Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-20. Claims 1-20 remain pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 5/16/2025 are acknowledged
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S Patent No. 12328290. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope, recite analogous limitations, and they achieve the same overall result. The claim limitations of the instant application are anticipated by the reference U.S Patent No. 12328290.
The table below shows comparison between the instant application and the reference US Patent claims.
Instant Application: 19/210,913
U.S Patent No. 12328290
Claim 1: A method of testing multimedia messaging service (MMS) messaging capacity of a wireless network and performed by a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC) of the wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of seed MMS messages from one or more client devices, wherein each of the plurality of seed MMS messages is targeted at one of a plurality of destination numbers and
causes MMS messages to be generated;
capturing at least a portion of the seed MMS messages and the generated MMS messages for testing purposes;
Claim 1: A method of testing multimedia messaging service (MMS) messaging capacity of a wireless network and performed by a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC) of the wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of seed MMS messages from one or more client devices, wherein each of the plurality of seed MMS messages is targeted at one of a plurality of destination numbers, wherein none of the plurality of destination numbers is associated with any database that the MMSC uses for routing determination, wherein each of the plurality of seed MMS messages gets stuck in a respective infinite loop of a plurality of infinite loops associated with the plurality of seed MMS messages, and keeps generating MMS messages;
capturing at least a portion of the seed MMS messages and the generated MMS messages; determining that a number of captured MMS messages reaches a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the number of captured MMS messages reaches the predetermined threshold, terminating each infinite loop of the plurality of infinite loops.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring and analyzing utilization of one or more system resources of the MMSC prior to terminating the capturing at least a portion of the seed MMS messages and the generated MMS messages, wherein the system resources include CPU, memory, network bandwidth, and storage.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring and analyzing utilization of one or more system resources of the MMSC prior to terminating the infinite loops,
wherein the system resources include CPU, memory, network bandwidth, and storage.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing an analysis of the captured MMS messages in view of one or more of a plurality of metrics,
wherein the plurality of metrics include a message throughput and an average response time.
Claim 3: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing an analysis of the captured MMS messages in view of one or more of a plurality of metrics,
wherein the plurality of metrics include a message throughput and an average response time.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein none of the plurality of destination numbers is associated with any database that a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC) of the wireless network uses for routing determination and the any database is one of an E.164 number mapping system (ENUM) or a home subscriber server (HSS).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1,
where the any database is one of an E.164 number mapping system (ENUM) or a home subscriber server (HSS).
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein the MMSC receives a negative response from the ENUM and receives an MMS message from an intercarrier gateway.
Claim 5: The method of claim 4, wherein each of the loops is created when the MMSC receives a negative response from the ENUM and receives an MMS message from an intercarrier gateway.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, further comprising:
skip querying the ENUM after the MMS message is routed back to the MMSC from the intercarrier gateway.
Claim 6: The method of claim 5, wherein the terminating of each of the loops includes:
skip querying the ENUM after the MMS message is routed back to the MMSC from the intercarrier gateway.
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, further comprising:
checking an incoming interface and an outgoing interface of an MMS message passing through the MMSC;
and in response to determining that both the incoming interface and the outgoing interface of the MMS message is an MM4 interface, blocking the MMS message.
Claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein the terminating of each of the loops further includes:
checking an incoming interface and an outgoing interface of an MMS message passing through the MMSC;
and in response to determining that both the incoming interface and the outgoing interface of the MMS message is an MM4 interface, blocking the MMS message.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more client devices is a subscriber of the wireless network.
Claim 8: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more client devices is a subscriber of the wireless network.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of destination numbers is a phone number that is a fictional number, or a real number that used to be associated with a subscriber of the wireless network.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of destination numbers is a phone number that is a fictional number, or a real number that used to be associated with a subscriber of the wireless network.
Claims 10-20 correspond to Claims 10-20 of U.S Patent No. 12328290.
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 1-2, 4, 8-11, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al. (US 8713075 B1) in view of Atkins et al. (US 7876766 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Upadhyay teaches a method of testing multimedia messaging service (MMS) messaging capacity of a wireless network and performed by a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC) of the wireless network, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of seed MMS messages from one or more client devices, wherein each of the plurality of seed MMS messages is targeted at one of a plurality of destination numbers (See in Upadhyay, Fig. 5, Elem: 502, Col. 7, Ln. 52-56, which teaches a user (the claimed client device) who sends an MMS message addressed to a recipient mobile device)
and causes MMS messages to be generated (See in Upadhyay, Col. 4, Ln. 25-40, which teaches the process of the user creating the MMS message);
capturing at least a portion of the seed MMS messages and the generated MMS messages (See in Upadhyay, Col. 5, Ln. 21 – 55, which teaches multimedia-messaging parameters (the claimed portion of the seed MMS messages and the generated MMS messages) being received by the MMSC)
Upadhyay fails to explicitly teach for testing purposes.
However, Atkins is in the same field of MMS messages being navigated through a MMSC (See in Atkins, Col. 2, Ln. 8-16, which teaches a relay between MMSCs that routes MMS traffic). Atkins discloses a status checker that periodically tests whether the MMSC is available, and return the MMSC returns capacity information (See in Atkins, Col. 9, Ln. 33-43 and Ln. 44-54, which teaches a MMSC status checker to test the MMSC capacity).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Upadhyay’s invention to include testing on the MMS message. In doing so, it would make the ability to keep track of messages and check if they are being sent properly.
Regarding claim 2, Upadhyay fails to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring and analyzing utilization of one or more system resources of the MMSC prior to terminating the capturing at least a portion of the seed MMS messages and the generated MMS messages,
wherein the system resources include CPU, memory, network bandwidth, and storage.
Atkins discloses a status checker that periodically tests the MMSC availability, checks capacity information, and acceptable bandwidth information. (See in Atkins, Col. 9, Ln. 44-54, which teaches a MMSC status checker to test the MMSC capacity, and Col. 11, Ln. 35-36 which teaches whether the MMSC has the preferred bandwidth). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay based on the teachings of Atkins in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Upadhyay teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing an analysis of the captured MMS messages in view of one or more of a plurality of metrics, wherein the plurality of metrics include a message throughput and an average response time. (See in Upadhyay, Col. 5, Ln. 21-40, which teaches parameters (the claimed metrics) that include characteristics and limitations based on the recipient’s subscriptions, that could include limiting the amount of data that may be transferred during a given period of time).
Regarding claim 8, Upadhyay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more client devices is a subscriber of the wireless network. (See in Upadhyay, Col. 3, Ln. 60-66, which teaches mobile devices are subscribed to a network to allow wireless-telecommunication).
Regarding claim 9, Upadhyay teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of destination numbers is a phone number that is a fictional number, or a real number that used to be associated with a subscriber of the wireless network. (See in Upadhyay, Col. 4, Ln. 34-39, and Col. 7, Ln. 21-23, which teaches the MMSC using a mobile device number or address).
Independent and dependent system claims 10-11, 13, and 17-18 merely represent a different category of invention from method claims 2, 4, and 8-9 but with similar scope. Independent and dependent non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 19 and 20 merely represent a different category of invention from method claims 1 and 2 but with similar scope. Therefore claim 10-11, 13, 17-19, and-20 are rejected based on the same rationale given for 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 above.
Claims 5 and 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al. (US 8713075 B1) in view of Atkins et al. (US 7876766 B1) and further in view of Asawa et al. (US 7746864 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Upadhyay and Atkins fail to explicitly teach the method of claim 4,
wherein the MMSC receives a negative response from the ENUM and receives an MMS message from an intercarrier gateway.
However, Asawa is in the same field of invention of routing MMS messages. (See in Asawa, Col. 4, Ln. 6-16, which teaches a method for routing MMS messages in a wireless network).
Asawa discloses an ENUM query message to an ENUM server to determine if the requested Mobile Device Number (MDN) matches and receives a result via NAPTR record (the claimed negative response), (See in Asawa, Fig. 4, Elem: S120, Col. 8, Ln. 38- 49). After the results, the MMSC routes the message to an inter-carrier gateway which then the inter-carrier gateway can forward the MMS message to a destination terminal or over the MM4 interface. (See in Asawa, S130, and S140, Col. 8, Ln. 50-67). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Upadhyay’s invention to include an ENUM response message and delivering the response message to the destination. In doing so, it would provide clarity and alertness for future messaging.
Dependent system claim 14 merely represents a different category of invention from method claim 5 but with similar scope. Therefore claim 14 is rejected based on the same rationale given for 5 above.
Claim 3 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al. (US 8713075 B1) in view of Atkins et al. (US 7876766 B1) and further in view of Huang (US 20120198054 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Upadhyay teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
the captured MMS messages in view of one or more of a plurality of metrics, (See in Upadhyay, Col. 5, Ln. 21 – 55, which teaches multimedia-messaging parameters (the captured) being received by the MMSC)
Upadhyay fails to teach performing an analysis of the captured MMS messages.
However, Atkins is in the same field of MMS messages being navigated through a MMSC (See in Atkins, Col. 2, Ln. 8-16, which teaches a relay between MMSCs that routes MMS traffic). Atkins discloses a status checker that periodically tests whether the MMSC is available, and return the MMSC returns capacity information (See in Atkins, Col. 9, Ln. 33-43 and Ln. 44-54, which teaches a MMSC status checker to test the MMSC capacity). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay based on the teachings of Atkins in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Both Upadhyay and Atkins fail to disclose, performing analysis of wherein the plurality of metrics includes a message throughput and an average response time.
However, Huang is in the same field of a multimedia message gateway. (See in Huang, ¶7-10, which teaches a multimedia gateway and directing it to the strongest gateway).
Huang discloses a method of determining which multimedia message gateway to navigate traffic through. In determining the gateway, Huang acquires and calculates the throughput of the gateway. (See in Huang, ¶51 and 56) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include throughput analysis, in doing so, providing ease of access and clarity when transmitting messages.
Dependent system claim 12 merely represents a different category of invention from method claim 3 but with similar scope. Therefore claim 12 is rejected based on the same rationale given for 3 above.
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhyay et al. (US 8713075 B1) in view of Atkins et al. (US 7876766 B1) and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20070088848 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Upadhyay and Atkins fails to teach the method of claim 5, further comprising:
the MMS parameters routed back to the MMSC from the intercarrier gateway. (See in Upadhyay, Col. 7, Ln. 64 – Col. 8, Ln. 6, which teaches where a foreign network identifies the multimedia-messaging parameters and provide them back to the home-network MMSC)
Upadhyay fails to teach where it sends an MMS from the intercarrier gateway.
However, Atkins is in the same field of MMS messages being navigated through a MMSC (See in Atkins, Col. 2, Ln. 8-16, which teaches a relay between MMSCs that routes MMS traffic).
Atkins discloses a traffic queue, where MMS will wait for their target MMSC to be available, then when the MMSC is available, the message will be forwarded. (See in Atkins, Col. 7, Ln. 45-59) One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay based on the teachings of Atkins in accordance to the rationale given for claim 1.
Upadhyay and Atkins fail to teach skip querying the ENUM.
However, Chen is in the same field of invention of multimedia messaging. (See in Chen, ¶3) Chen discloses where the MMSC determines when the forward counter on MM4 passes the predefined maximum number of forwards, the MMSC terminates the process of the MM4 message moving forward. (See in Chen, ¶51, 53, and 55).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Upadhyay and Atkin’s methods to include checking the interfaces and the messages, then terminating the process after a certain count. In doing so, it would provide an ease of access to determining when a message should be sent through the interface or not.
Regarding claim 7, Upadhyay and Atkins fail to teach the method of claim 6, further comprising:
checking an incoming interface and an outgoing interface of an MMS message passing through the MMSC;
and in response to determining that both the incoming interface and the outgoing interface of the MMS message is an MM4 interface, blocking the MMS message.
However, Chen is in the same field of invention of multimedia messaging. (See in Chen, ¶3) Chen discloses the messages being exchanged through an MM4 interface protocol that is sent through multiple MMSCs. It’s done through an originator MMS relay/server (the claimed incoming interface) to be sent to the recipient MMSC (the claimed outgoing interface) (See in Chen, ¶19, Ln. 1-13). When the recipient is receiving the MMS message, it analyzes the forward count, and when it surpasses a predefined maximum number of forwards allowed, it will then terminate the process of the MM4 message. (See in Chen ¶51, 53, and 55)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Upadhyay based on the teachings of Atkins in accordance to the rationale given for claim 6.
Dependent system claims 15 and 16 merely represent a different category of invention from method claims 6 and 7 but with similar scope. Therefore claims 15 and 16 are rejected based on the same rationale given for 6 and 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELINE AYLIN IMANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0247. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/CELINE AYLIN IMANI/ 07/10/2026 Examiner, Art Unit 2457
/ARIO ETIENNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights