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 1-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/04/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the acronym “SIP”, the full terminology of which is not defined in the claims. Examiner suggests amending the claims to define the acronym.
Claims 14 and 15 similarly recite “SIP” and are objected to under the same rationale.
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the conference includes SIP legs, further comprising” (emphasis added), which is not grammatically correct. Examiner suggests the amendment “and the method further comprising”.
Claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the conference includes TDM legs, further comprising” (emphasis added), which is not grammatically correct. Examiner suggests the amendment “and the method further comprising”.
Claim 3 recites the acronym “TDM”, the full terminology of which is not defined in the claims. Examiner suggests amending the claims to define the acronym.
Claim 11 recites the acronym “SDP”, the full terminology of which is not defined in the claims. Examiner suggests amending the claims to define the acronym.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims contain numerous issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is an attempt at enumerating each issue. However, Applicant is advised to thoroughly review the claims for any additional issues. Additionally, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. Accordingly, the claims have not been rejected under prior art.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bridged call" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite “a bridged call”. Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "all primary SIP legs" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “primary SIP legs”. Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "all sequence SIP legs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “sequence SIP legs”. Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "dynamic legs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “dynamic legs”. Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “establishing the bridged call using a default SIP trunk configured in a node, or selecting a unique SIP trunk if no default is configured” in line 8. It is unclear if this limitation is intended to perform “establishing” or “selecting” in the alternative, or if “establishing” is to be done “using a default SIP trunk” or “a unique SIP trunk” in the alternative. Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending from claim 1 and under the same rationale.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the type of bridged call" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “type of bridged call”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the type of connected leg" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “type of connected leg”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the secondary nodes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “secondary nodes”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the primary node" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “primary node”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the bridged calls" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “bridged calls”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the codecs" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claims do not previously recite any “codecs”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the request for bridging the SIP call" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “request”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the bridged call” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “bridged call”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the bridged call” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “bridged call”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "all primary SIP legs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “primary SIP legs”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "all sequence SIP legs" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “sequence SIP legs”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "dynamic legs" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim does not previously recite any “dynamic legs”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R MANIWANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7257. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Wing F Chan can be reached at (571) 272-7493. 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.
/JOSEPH R MANIWANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights