Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 20
`Application No.:—13/056,277
`Filing Date:
`January 27, 2011
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claim 3, 14, 24, 42, 46, 61, 65, 80 and 84 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 12,15-
`
`17, 21, 22, 25-27, 31, 32, 33, 35-41, 43-45, 47-50, 52, 54-60, 62-64, 66-69, 71, 73-79, 81-83, 85-
`
`88 and 90 have been amended. Claims 2, 7-10, 13, 18-20, 23, 28-30, 34, 51, 53, 70, 72 and 89
`
`are unchanged. The amendments are supported by the original claims, and at least in part by p.3,
`
`Il, 24-25, p. 24, ll. 16-20, p. 25, ll. 24-29, p. 37, ll. 1-16, and p. 38, Il. 1-17 of PCT Publication
`
`WO 2010/012090. No new subject matter has been added. Applicant respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration of the rejections in light of the amendments and the following remarks.
`
`Discussion of Claim Objections
`
`Claims 52, 71 and 90 have been objected to because of informalities regarding the first
`
`occurrence of the phrase “said routing controller”. Claim 52 has been amended to delete the
`
`phrase “said routing controller”. Claims 71 and 92 have been amended to change the phrase
`
`“said routing controller” to be “a routing controller” as suggested by the Examiner.
`
`Discussion of Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Claims 32 and 90 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter. Claims 32 and 90 have been amendedto refer to a non-transitory
`
`computer readable medium as suggested by the Examiner. Claims 22, 31 and 71 have been
`
`voluntarily amended to change the reference to computer readable medium to also recite a non-
`
`transitory computer readable medium.
`
`Discussion of Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`The Examiner has rejected Claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-14, 16-24, 26-35, 52-54, 71-73 and 90
`
`under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Application Publication No.
`
`2004/0022237 Al (Elliott) and U.S. Application Publication No. 2008/0056235 Al (Albina).
`
`Claims 4, 15, 25, 36-42, 43-48, 55-67, 74-80, 81-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`
`unpatentable over Elliott in view of Albina and U.S. Patent No. 6,674,745 (Schuster). Claims
`
`49-50, 68-69 and 87-88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elliott in
`
`-2]-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`view of Albina and U.S. Application Publication No. 2002/012391 Al (Shalit). Claims 51, 70
`
`and 89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elliott in view of Albina and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,454,030 (de Oliveira). Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims
`
`are patentable overthe prior art of record as discussed below.
`
`Standard of Prima facie Obviousness
`
`The Patent and Trademark Office has the burden undersection 103 to establish a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been
`
`obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art
`
`could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`It can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new
`
`invention does.
`
`If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to
`
`support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
`MP.EP. § 2143.
`
`Discussion of Patentability of Pending Claims
`
`Rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-14, 16-24, 26-35, 52-54, 71-73 and 90 over Elliott |
`in view of Albina
`
`All of the independent Claims 1, 12, 22, 32, 33, 52, 71 and 90 and certain ones of the
`
`dependent claims have been rejected over the combination of Elliott and Albina. Claims 3, 14,
`and 24 have been cancelled andtherefore the rejection as it pertains to these claims is moot.
`Independent Claims 1, 12, 22 and 32 all recite a common feature in various forms of
`
`language, this commonfeature being represented by the following language of amended Claim 1:
`
`... transmitting an access code request message to an access server, said access
`code request message including said callee identifier and_a location identifier
`identifying a location of the mobile telephone; and
`receiving an access code reply message from the access server in response to said
`access code request message, said access code reply message including an access
`code different from said callee identifier and associated with said location
`identifier,...
`
`-22-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 20
`. Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 20
`
`Application No.: —13/056,277
`Filing Date:
`January 27, 2011
`
`Neither Elliott nor Albina disclose or suggest including a location identifier in an access
`
`code request message or an access code associated with a location identifier provided in an
`
`access code request message. Cancelled Claim 3 recited “transmitting a location identifier” with
`
`the access code request message but the Examiner regarded paragraph 105 of Albina as teaching
`a mobile station 1202 registers with registrar/location server 1210 to give the location of mobile
`station and referred to Figure 12. However, it appears that in the indicated paragraph and in
`
`Figure 12, the term “registrar/location server 1210” is merely a label. There is nothing in Albina
`
`to suggest any location information pertaining to the location of the mobile telephone should or
`
`could be used; or that if such location information were available it should or could be
`
`transmitted in an access code request message sent from a mobile telephone; or if it were
`
`transmitted in an access code request message that it should or could be associated with the
`
`access code provided back to the mobile telephone in an access code reply message.
`
`Therefore, there is nothing to suggest the above indicated language that now appears in
`
`each of amended independent Claims 1, 12, 22 or 32 herewith is disclosed or suggested in Elliott,
`
`Albina or their combination. Therefore, the amended independent Claims 1, 12, 22 and 32 are
`
`not obvious in view of the cited references and the rejection of these independent claims under
`
`35 USC 103 is overcomeandthese claimsare allowable over Elliott and Albina.
`
`In addition, the rejection of the claims that ultimately depend from independent Claims1,
`
`12, 22 or 32 is also overcome dueto their ultimate dependence on oneof these claims and due to
`
`the additional subject matter they add to these claims.
`
`Regarding Claims 5, 16 and 26, these claims have been amendedtorecite language to the
`
`effect that:
`
`transmitting said location identifier comprises transmitting an identifier of a
`wireless voice signal station in wireless communication with the mobile telephone
`
`The Examiner has referred to Figure 3 and paragraph 33, lines 1-18 of Albina, which the
`
`Examiner has paraphrased as “mobile device 102 sends a data message(i.e. identifier) which is
`
`carried via mobile data network 106 whichis deliver to application server 110.”
`
`In Applicant’s system, the location identifier recited by Applicant is in a field of the
`
`access code request message which is sent to an access server. The Examinerhas not referred to
`
`-23-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 5 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 5 of 20
`
`Application No.: —13/056,277
`Filing Date:
`January 27, 2011
`
`any part of Elliott that is alleged to describe this and there is nothing to suggest the data message
`
`described by Albina should contain an identification of the wireless voice station in
`
`communication with the mobile telephone from which the access code request messageis sent.
`
`In the very passages of Albina mentioned by the Examiner, Albinarecites: “The data message
`from mobile communication device 102 comprises information associated with VoIP destination
`
`device 104. The data message may include a unique identifier or other information sufficient to
`
`identify VoIP destination device 104” (emphasis added). Albina appears to be focusing on
`
`information associated with VoIP destination device 104 and appears to have no regard to the
`
`identification of a wireless voice station in communication with the mobile telephone. There no
`
`disclosure or suggestion to provide in the access code request message an identification of the
`
`wireless voice station in communication with the mobile telephone from which the access code
`
`request message is sent. This is a further reason why Claims 5, 16 and 26 are not obvious in view
`
`of the cited references and overcomethe rejection under 35 USC 103(a).
`
`In addition, regarding Claims 6, 17 and 27, these claimsrefer to a:
`
`user configured identifier ofa location associated with the mobile telephone.
`
`The Examinerrefers to lines 8-14 of paragraph 104 of Albina, and appears to equate the
`
`client application on the mobile phone of Albina with the term “user-configured identifier” used
`
`by Applicant in Claims 6, 17 and 27.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`the Examiner ignores the following underlined
`
`language of the term claimed by Applicant: user configured identifier of a location associated
`
`with the mobile telephone. Even if the client application referred to by Albina could be
`
`characterized as a user configured identifier, there is nothing to suggest that such application is a
`
`user configured identifier of a location associated with the mobile telephone. This is a further
`
`reason why Claims 6, 17 and 27 are not obvious in view ofthe cited references and overcome the
`
`rejection under 35 USC 103(a).
`
`Claims 9, 19 and 29 have been amendedto recite:
`
`the access code comprises a telephone number or an IP network address useable
`by the mobile telephone to establish communications between the mobile
`telephone andthecallee.
`
`-24-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 6 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 6 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`The Examiner refers to Elliott, Fig 1: Device 102 makes a call to callee 120 which is
`
`routing through IP data network 112. Albina refers to a temporary directory number (TDN)but
`
`not an IP network address being an access code and provides no disclosure to suggest that a
`
`temporary directory number could be a network address. This is a further reason why Claims 9,
`
`19 and 29 are not obvious in view of the cited references and overcomethe rejection under 35
`
`USC 103 (a).
`
`Regarding independent Claims 33, 52, 71 and 90, these claimsall recite in various forms
`
`the following exemplary language of Claim 33:
`
`... receiving from the mobile telephone an access code request message including
`
`a callee identifier associated with the callee and a location identifier identifying a location
`
`of the mobile telephone; and
`
`producing an access code identifying the channel based _on_said location
`identifier, said access code being different from the callee identifier and useable
`by the mobile telephoneto initiate a call to the callee using the channel...
`
`The Examinercites paragraph 487 of Elliott which reads:
`
`[0487] In step 2226, soft switch sites 104, 106 instruct the gateway sites to make
`connections to set up the call. Soft switch sites 104, 106 can send messages
`through data network 112 (e.g. using IPDC protocol commands) to gatewaysites
`108, 110, to instruct the gateway sites to make the necessary connections for
`setting up the call origination from calling party 102, the call termination to called
`party 120, and the connection betweenorigination and termination.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the cited passage of Elliott refers to a soft switch
`
`instructing gateway sites by sending IPDC protocol commandsto instruct the gatewaysites to set
`
`up call origination, termination and connections. There is nothing that would be considered to be
`
`an access code reply message that is transmitted back to the mobile telephone wherein the access
`
`code reply message includes an access code that is useable by the mobile telephoneto call the
`
`callee. Rather the soft switch receives an incoming signaling message at the onset of a call and
`
`then determines an appropriate route to route the call and then contacts a suitable gateway to
`
`configure it to be part of the route and then the soft switch routes the call through the gateway.
`
`The routing and configuration of the gateway is independentof the originating telephone (which
`
`is not a mobile telephone, as noted by the Examiner) and the soft switch receives nothing like the
`-25-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 7 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 7 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`claimed access code request message with a location identifier from the telephone. In addition,
`the soft switch makes no use of location information to produce an access code that can be
`
`subsequently used by the telephone to makea call and the soft switch does not send an access
`code reply message bearing such an access code back to the originating telephone. As a result
`there is nothing in Elliott to suggest receivingfrom the mobile telephone an access code request
`
`message including a callee identifier associated with the callee and a location identifier
`
`identifying a location of the mobile telephone; and producing an access code identifying the
`
`channel based on said location identifier, said access code being different from the callee
`
`identifier and useable by the mobile telephone toinitiate a call to the callee using the channel.
`
`Regarding Albina, as stated above, there is nothing in Albina to suggest any location
`
`information pertaining to the location of the mobile telephone should or could be used; or that if
`
`such location information were available it should or could be transmitted in an access code
`
`request message sent from a mobile telephone; orif it were transmitted in an access code request
`
`messagethat it should or could be associated with the access code provided back to the mobile
`
`telephone in an access code reply message. Albina merely provides a temporary directory
`number (TDN) without regard to any location information about the mobile telephone. Neither
`
`Elliott nor Albina discloses or suggests receiving location information from a mobile telephone
`
`or producing an access code based on said location information.
`
`Therefore, amended
`
`independent Claims 33, 52, 71 and 90 are not obvious in view of the cited references and the
`
`rejection under 35 USC 103asit pertains to Claims 33, 52, 71 and 90 is overcome.
`_
`The claims that ultimately depend from amended independent Claims 33, 52, 71 and 90
`are also not obvious and therefore the rejection of such claims is also overcome, due to their
`
`dependence on one of the indicated independent claims and due to the additional subject matter
`
`they add to one of the independent claims. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-3, 5-7, 8-14, 16-
`
`24, 26-35, 52-54, 71-73 and 90 under:35 USC 103 having regard to Elliott and Albina is
`
`overcome.
`
`-26-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 8 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 8 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`Rejection of Claims 4, 15, 25, 36-42, 43-48, 55-67, 74-80, 81-86 over Elliott
`in view of Albina and Schuster
`
`Regarding Claims 4, 15 and 25, these claims are dependent on amended Claims1, 12 and
`
`22 respectively, which have been shown aboveto distinguish over Elliott and Albina. Claims 4,
`
`15 and 25 recite:
`
`transmitting said location identifier comprises transmitting an IP address of the
`mobile telephone in a wireless IP network
`
`The Examinerhas correctly noted that the combination of Elliott and Albina does
`
`not teach transmitting an IP address of the mobile telephone in a wireless IP network.
`
`The
`
`Examinerhasreferred to col. 6, lines 58-62 of Schuster whichstate:
`
`Therefore, to properly set up an internet telephony call, the originating gateway
`needs some mechanism to determine the IP address of the appropriate terminating
`gateway 20 based on the telephone numbersupplied by the calling party.
`Applicant respectfully submits that the indicated portion of Shuster refers to an IP address
`of a terminating gateway, not an IP address of a telephone. Furthermore, the context in which the
`
`IP address is recited in Applicant’s Claims 4, 15 and 25 is one in which the IP addressis part of a
`
`location identifier, the existence or use of which is not disclosed in Elliott, Albina or Schuster.
`
`There is no suggestion in Elliott, Albina or Schuster that would lead one skilled in the art to
`
`modify the use of the IP address of a terminating gateway to cause such an IP addressto act as a
`
`location identifier of a access request message sent from a mobile telephone and to cause an
`
`access code reply message containing an access code associated with the location identifier to be
`
`sent back to the mobile telephone for use by the mobile telephone to initiate a call using a
`channel identified by the access code. Therefore Claims 4, 15 and 25 are not obvious in view of
`
`the cited references and the rejection of Claims 4, 15 and 25 under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome
`
`by the amendmentto the independent claims from which they depend.
`
`Regarding Claims 36, 55 and 74, these claims have been amendedto generally recite:
`
`-27-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 9 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 9 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`...producing said access code comprises selecting said access code from a pool
`of access codes, wherein each access code in said pool of access codes identifies
`a respective telephone numberor IP network address.
`
`The Examinerhasreferred to col. 11, lines 1-5 of Schuster whichrecite:
`
`For instance, if the SRITG serves wireless (e.g., cellular, PCS, etc.) customers,
`then the AMS mayrefer to an appropriate reference database to associate the IP
`address of the SRITG with the wireless phone numbers that the SRITG serves....
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that Schuster describes relating wireless phone
`
`numbers to IP addresses(see the title of Schuster). The database referred to by Schuster relates
`
`only IP addresses to wireless phone numbers. The pool claimed by Applicant relates location
`
`information to telephone numbers or IP addresses. There is nothing in Schuster to suggest that
`
`the database should be used as a poolthat relates location information and telephone numbersor
`
`IP addresses, in the context of selecting an access code based on a location identifier received
`
`from the mobile telephone. Therefore Claims 36, 55 and 74 are not obvious in view ofthe cited
`references andthe rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`Regarding Claims 37, 56 and 75, these claims have generally been amendedtorecite:
`
`determining from said location identifier a local calling area associated with the mobile
`
`telephone and selecting an access code associated with a calling area matching said local calling
`
`area associated with the mobile telephone.
`
`The Examiner has referred to Albina, paragraph 53, whichrecites:
`
`[0053] A media gateway receives the call and routes the SIP signaling associated
`with the destination phone number (the assigned local temporary number) to the
`SIP application server.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the indicated passage and the context provided
`
`by Albina provide no disclosure or suggestion to “determine from said location identifier a local
`
`calling area associated with the mobile telephone and selecting an access code associated with a
`
`calling area matching said local calling area associated with the mobile telephone,” as recited in
`
`-28-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 10 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 10 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`amended Claims 37, 57 and 75. Therefore, these claims are not obvious in view of the cited
`
`references and the rejection of Claims 37, 56 and 75 under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Regarding Claims 38, 57 and 76 these claims have been amendedtorecite:
`
`accessing a location field of a dialing profile associated with the caller when a
`‘local calling area cannot be determined from the contents of said location
`identifier and determining a local calling area associated with the mobile
`telephone from the contents of said location field and selecting an access code
`associated with a calling area matching the local calling area associated with the
`mobile telephone.
`
`The Examinerrefers to Albina, paragraph 105, whichrecites:
`
`[0105] A. Mobile station 1202 registers with registrar/location server 1210
`through PDSN/SGSN (e.g., PDSN 1204). This occurs on application start and
`reoccurs every "Expires" (see c. below) seconds.
`
`The Examineralso referred to Figure 12. Applicant respectfully submits that as stated above,it
`
`appears that in the indicated paragraph and in Figure 12, the term “registrar/location server 1210”
`
`is merely a label. There is nothing in Albina to suggest any location information pertaining to the
`
`location of the mobile telephone should or could be used to determine an access code, or more
`
`particularly that a local calling area should be determined from a location field of a dialing
`
`profile associated with the caller or that the access code should be selected by matching a local
`
`calling area associated therewith to a local calling area indicated in the location field of a dialing
`
`profile associated with the caller. Therefore amended Claims 38, 57, and 76 are not obvious in
`
`view ofthe cited references and the rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Regarding Claims 39, 58 and 77, these claims have been amendedtorecite:
`
`said location identifier comprises an IP address of the mobile telephone in a
`wireless IP network.
`
`The Examinerrefers to Schuster, col. 6, lines 58-62 whichrecite:
`
`Therefore, to properly set up an internet telephony call, the originating gateway
`needs some mechanism to determine the IP address of the appropriate terminating
`gateway 20 based on the telephone numbersupplied by the calling party.
`
`-29-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 11 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 11 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that this portion of Schuster refer to determining an IP address of
`
`a terminating gateway based on a (callee) telephone number supplied by the calling party (by
`
`caller). Applicant’s Claims 39, 58 and 77 refer to a location identifier identifying a location of
`
`the mobile telephone in an access code request message from the mobile telephone. The cited
`
`portion of Schuster provide no suggestion to provide an access code request message having a
`
`location identifier comprising an IP address of the mobile telephone in a wireless IP network.
`
`Therefore amended Claims 39, 58 and 77 are not obvious in view of the cited references and the
`
`rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Regarding Claims 40, 59 and 78, these claimsrecite:
`
`said location identifier comprises an identifier of a wireless voice signal station in
`
`wireless communication with the mobile telephone.
`
`The Examinerrefers to Albina, Figure 2, and paragraph 33 whichrecite:
`
`of
`infrastructure
`supporting
`the
`described
`generally
`[0033] Having
`communication system 100, the operation of various embodimentsof the cellular-
`to-VoIP call establishment process will be described.
`In the embodiment
`illustrated in FIG. 2, the cellular-to-VoIP call establishment process begins, at
`reference A, with mobile communication device 102 providing a data message to
`mobile data network 106, which is delivered to application server 110. While the
`data message is initially carried via mobile data network 106,
`it should be
`appreciated that the data message may be routed to other communication networks
`(wireless or wired) before arriving at application server 110.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that in Applicant’s system, the location identifier recited
`
`by Applicant is in a field of the access code request message which is sent to an access server.
`
`There is nothing to suggest the data message described by Albina should contain an identification
`
`of the wireless voice station in communication with the mobile telephone from which the access
`
`code request messageis sent. In the very passages of Albina mentioned by the Examiner, Albina
`
`recites that “The data message from mobile communication device 102 comprises information
`
`associated with VoIP destination device 104. The data message may include a unique identifier
`
`or other information sufficient to identify VoIP destination device 104.” There no disclosure or
`
`suggestion to provide in the access code request message an identification of the wireless voice
`
`-30-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 12 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 12 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`station in communication with the mobile telephone from which the access code request message
`
`is sent. Therefore Claims 40, 59, and 78 are not obvious in view ofthe cited references and the
`
`rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Regarding Claims 41, 60 and 79, these claimsrecite:
`
`said location identifier comprises a user-configured identifier of a location associated
`
`with the mobile telephone.
`
`The Examiner cites Albina, Figure 12, as indicating the mobile station 1202 registers with
`register/location server 1210 and refers to paragraph 104, lines 8-12 whichrecite:
`
`[0104] FIG. 12 illustrates yet another embodiment of a cellular-to-VoIP call
`establishment process, which occurs across the following system components: a
`mobile station 1202, PDSN 1204, a mobile switching center 1206, an
`internetworking function 1208, a registrar/location server 1210, an SIP proxy
`1212, an IP service provider proxy server 1214, a PSTN gateway 1216, and a
`VoIP SIP proxy. In this example, it assumed that a client application resides on
`mobile station 1202 for enabling the user to select a party to call by name(e.g.,
`voip@prov.com). The application is configured such that requests arrive at the IP
`address of internetworking function (IWF) 1208.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant’s claimsrefer to a user configuredidentifier
`
`of a location associated with the mobile telephone. The Examiner appears to equate the client
`
`application on the mobile phone of Albina with the term “user-configured identifier” used by
`
`Applicant in Claims 41, 60 and 79, but this ignores the following underlined language of the term
`
`used by Applicant: user configured identifier of a location associated with the mobile telephone.
`
`In the context of Applicant’s claim, of course the user is the user of the mobile telephone. Even if
`
`the client application referred to by Albina could be characterized as a user configured identifier,
`
`there is nothing to suggest that such application is a user configured identifier of a location
`
`associated with the mobile telephone. Therefore Claims 41, 60 and 79 are not obvious in view of
`
`the cited references and the rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Regarding Claims 42, 61 and 80, these claims have been cancelled and therefore the
`
`rejection of these claims is moot.
`
`Regarding Claims 43, 62 and 81, these claims have been amendedtorecite:
`
`-31-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 13 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 13 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`at least one of said access codes in said pool of access codes identifies an IP
`network address as a possible channel through which said call can be conducted.
`
`The Examinerrefers to Schuster, Abstract and Figure 1 and indicates that ITG routes the
`
`call with an IP network.
`
`Applicant respectively submits that of course, Schuster describes a method and system for
`
`mapping phone numbers to IP addressesand thus refers to IP addresses, but they are not referred
`
`to in the context of a system in which an access code is selected from a pool of access codes.
`
`Schuster describes relating wireless phone numbers to IP addresses (see the title of
`
`Schuster). The database referred to by Schuster relates only IP addresses to wireless phone
`
`numbers. The pool claimed by the present application relates location information to telephone
`
`numbers or IP addresses. There is nothing in Schuster to suggest that the database should be
`
`used as a pool that relates location information and telephone numbers or IP addresses, in the
`
`context of selecting an access code based on a location identifier received from the mobile
`
`telephone. Therefore, Schuster fails to describe or suggest at least one of said access codes in
`
`said poolof access codes identifies an IP network address as a possible channel through which
`said call can be conducted, as recited in Applicant’s Claims 43, 62 and 81. Therefore, Claims
`
`43, 62, 81 are not obvious in view ofthe cited references and the rejection under 35 USC 103(a)
`
`is overcome.
`
`Claims 46, 65 and 84 have been cancelled and therefore the rejection of these claimsis
`
`moot.
`
`Claims 47, 66 and 85 recite:
`
`associating said callee identifier included in said access code request message
`with the selected access code.
`
`The Examinerindicates Elliott describes at paragraph 738 the callee identifier (i.e., dialed
`
`number)is stored in table entry, table 14.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that table 14 has four columns identified as Number,
`
`Terminating Circuit Group, Priority and Load. Thetable thus associates these entities with each
`
`other. While the “Number” column appears to hold a dialed number, none of the other columns
`
`appears to relate to a selected access code, and therefore, there is nothing that discloses or
`
`suggests the dialed number acting as a callee identifier should be associated with a selected
`-32-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 14 of 20
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 62-6 Filed 03/20/23 Page 14 of 20
`
`Application No.:
`Filing Date:
`
`13/056,277
`January 27, 2011
`
`access code, especially since none of the columnsin the table holds an access code of the type
`
`claimed by Applicant. Therefore Claims 47, 66 and 85 are not obvious in view of the cited
`
`references and therejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Claims 48, 67 and 86 have been amendedtorecite:
`
`associating said caller identifier and said callee identifier with the selected access
`code occurs only when:
`a)
`the access code is not already associated with a callee id; or
`b)
`the access code is already associated with a callee id, and a timeout value
`associated with that callee id has expired.
`
`The Examiner refers to Elliott table 14: circuit group contains channels for identifying
`
`callee.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that as stated above, none of the columnsof table 14
`
`appears to relate to a selected access code andtherefore there is nothing that discloses or suggests
`the dialed numberacting as a callee identifier should be associated with a selected access code.
`
`Furthermore, none of the columns appear to hold a timeout value and therefore there is nothing to
`suggest that a timeout value is associated with a callee id. Therefore Claims 48, 67and 86are not
`
`obvious in view ofthe cited references and the rejection under 35 USC 103(a) is overcome.
`
`Rejection of Claims 49-50, 68-69 and 87-88 over Elliott in view of Albina and Shalit
`
`Claims49, 68 and 87 are similar, and Claims 50, 69 and 88 are similar.
`
`Claims 49, 68 and 87 have been amendedtorecite:
`
`associating a timestamp with said access code, for use in determining when the
`usability ofsaid access codeto initiate a call to the callee will expire, and causing
`said timestamp to be included in said access code reply message transmitted to
`the mobile telephone.
`
`-33-
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Docume