The subject matter described herein relates to providing data to applications. More specifically, the subject matter relates to providing billing and usage data to downstream applications.
In current communications networks, when session initiation protocol (SIP) messages are used in association with a session or event, accounting information is typically generated so that appropriate billing records may be created. In addition, various downstream applications may examine the billing records for purposes such as billing verification, fraud detection, revenue assurance and data analysis.
For example, SIP messaging may be used in an Internet protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) environment, for instant messaging (IM), voice-over-IP (VoIP), and other IP-based telephony solutions. In an IMS environment, accounting information may be generated by a network entity (NE) such as a short message service center (SMSC) upon the delivery or receipt of a short message service (SMS) message. This accounting information may include information extracted from SIP messages, as well as other accounting-related data, and may be passed to a function for converting the accounting information into a format called a charging detail record (CDR). The CDR may then be sent to a billing system, where it may be used to bill the subscriber for the session or event.
One problem associated with current SIP charging and verification systems is that they are susceptible to fraud. In one exemplary scenario, so-called “fraudsters” may exploit an aspect of conventional charging systems in order to defraud network operators. Typically, network entities such as SMSCs are responsible for both delivering messages to subscribers and for generating accounting information associated with the charging event (i.e. message delivery). In an online billing scenario, also referred to as prepaid billing, before delivering a message to a particular subscriber, the message may be cached while a prepaid application is queried to determine whether the subscriber has enough prepaid credit to deliver the message. However, the message volume associated with SMSCs is often so large that the SMSC cannot query the prepaid application without risking congestion or failure of the SMSC. Therefore, SMSCs may prioritize delivery of messages over querying the prepaid application or generating accounting information. In short, an overloaded SMSC may assume that a subscriber possesses enough prepaid credit to send the message and prevents congestion by not querying the prepaid application and not generating accounting information. Fraudsters may abuse this aspect of conventional charging systems to defraud network operators. They may begin by purchasing a prepaid card containing a small number of prepaid credit and attempt to send a large volume of messages such that the SMSC becomes overloaded and employs the procedures described above where each message attempt is delivered without validating the subscriber's prepaid credit amount or generating accounting information associated with the messages. Accordingly, downstream applications, such as billing verification applications, may not receive an indication that the fraud has occurred until it is too late. This can leave network operators with numerous and expensive uncollectible bills.
Another problem associated with current SIP charging and verification systems is that they are prone to error. For example, because billing systems are typically located downstream from the various network entities and applications involved in producing accounting information, data corruption may accumulate and hinder verification systems' ability to accurately audit SIP transactions. Therefore, even when accounting information is generated, by the time it has been examined and/or converted into additional formats it may include missing or incomplete data. This may produce inaccurate or under-billed records that cost network operators to correct.
Yet another problem associated with current SIP charging and verification systems is that they lack a redundant audit trail. In the event that accounting information is corrupted, incomplete, or not generated as described above, current verification systems lack the ability to correct corrupted data, complete incomplete records, or recreate missing information. They also lack the ability to tell network operators where in the information flow the error occurred so that it may be examined and corrected.
Accordingly, there exists a need for improved methods and systems for providing billing and usage data to downstream applications.
It is an object of the presently disclosed subject matter to provide billing and usage data to downstream applications. According to one aspect, the subject matter described herein includes a method for acquiring billing and usage data in an IP multimedia subsystem (IMS) environment. The method includes copying at least one of a call signaling message and an IMS accounting message relating to an IMS transaction upstream from a billing system (BS) and providing the at least one copied message to an application for one of billing verification, fraud detection, revenue assurance, and data analysis. The types of acquired data may be copied separately or in combination, and the copied data may be examined, compared, or otherwise utilized separately or in combination.
According to another aspect, the subject matter described herein includes a system for acquiring billing and usage data in an IMS environment, where the system includes a message copy function (MCF) for copying at least one of a call signaling message and an IMS accounting message relating to an IMS transaction upstream from a billing system (BS), and a communications function for providing the at least one copied message to an application for one of billing verification, fraud detection, revenue assurance, and data analysis. Message copy functions may be located on various network entities and/or applications, and may acquire data in solitary fashion or in combination.
In a scenario where the copied call signaling message includes a SIP Invite message, the message may contain parameters examined by a downstream application. Exemplary SIP message parameters may include a sending subscriber identifier, a receiving subscriber identifier, a P-Associated uniform resource identifier (URI), a. P-Visited-Network-ID, P-Access-Network-Info, a P-Charging-Function-Address, and a P-Charging-Vector. However, it is appreciated that additional SIP information or SIP message types may be copied without departing from the subject matter described herein. It is further appreciated that the at least one copied call signaling message and IMS accounting message may include copying only call signaling messages, copying only IMS accounting messages, or copying both call signaling messages and IMS accounting messages without departing from the scope of the subject matter described herein.
An IMS accounting message, as used herein, may include a Diameter protocol-based message containing accounting information associated with a charging event. It is appreciated, however, that additional protocols suitable for transmitting IMS accounting information may be used without departing from the scope of the subject matter described herein. More specifically, the term IMS accounting message may include one of a raw IMS accounting message or a charging detail record (CDR), where a raw IMS accounting message includes a non-CDR message containing accounting information associated with an IMS charging event. Raw IMS accounting messages may be used to generate more formal charging detail records. For example, one or more raw IMS accounting messages may be generated by a charging trigger function (CTF) located at a network node based upon observed signaling messages. After receiving the one or more raw IMS accounting messages, a CDR may be generated based on the received raw IMS messages. In one embodiment, a charging data function (CDF) may convert raw IMS accounting messages into CDRs for examination by a downstream billing system.
It is further appreciated that the types of messages copied and/or generated by a message copy function instance may be determined by the location of the message copy function instance within the IMS charging network. Possible locations for MCF instances within the IMS charging network and the types of messages which may be copied by each MCF instance will be described in greater detail below with respect to
It is appreciated that message copying may be performed at various locations in a charging system. For example, in an offline IMS charging system, an IMS message copy function may be located at or incorporated with a charging data function (CDF) or a charging gateway function (CGF). The CDF may also be co-located or incorporated into the CGF forming a combined CDF/CGF entity. The message copy function described herein may be located on or incorporated with a network entity (NE), CDF, or CGF individually, or may be located on or incorporated with a combined CDF/CGF entity or combined NE/CDF/CGF entity. It is further appreciated that multiple message copy functions (also referred to as multiple instances of the message copy function) may be located at any of the above-named locations in an IMS charging network. Similarly, one or more message copy functions may be located on or incorporated with elements in an online charging environment. For example, an instance of a message copy function may be located at a NE and/or an online charging system (OCS), where the NE and OCS may additionally be combined into a single NE/OCS entity in some embodiments.
It is appreciated that a NE as described above may include a circuit-switched network element (CS-NE), a service network element, a SIP application server (AS), a media resource function controller (MRFC), a media gateway controller function (MGCF), a border gateway controller function (BGCF), a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF), an interrogating call session control function (I-CSCF), a serving call session control function (S-CSCF), a serving general packet radio service (GPRS) support node (SGSN), and a gateway GPRS support node (GGSN). Additional IMS network elements may be included without departing from the scope of the subject matter described herein.
In block 102, the at least one copied message may be provided to a downstream application for one of billing verification, fraud detection, revenue assurance, and data analysis. Because different types of messages may be copied at different points in the charging system, the downstream application may be provided with a wide variety of information associated with an IMS charging session or event. Additionally, the downstream application may be provided with timelier and more accurate information because it may be received directly from the source of the information at the time it was created. For example, a downstream billing verification application may be provided with at least one of a copied call signaling message, such as a SIP Invite message, and a IMS accounting message, such as a CDR.
Because copied messages may be associated with a common session or event, they may be compared or otherwise utilized together. One exemplary use includes detecting and generating missing IMS accounting messages based on copied call signaling messages. For example, a first instance of a message copy function may be located at a NE, such as a short message service center (SMSC), and may generate IMS accounting messages based on observed call signaling messages, such as SIP or SS7 signaling messages. In addition, a second instance of the message copy function may be located at a CGF for copying CDRs and providing them to a downstream application. Therefore, the downstream application, such as a billing verification application, may receive both call signaling messages and IMS accounting messages relating to the same transaction, and based on a comparison of the provided messages, may detect any discrepancies in order to detect possible fraud. Such an embodiment requires that independent message copy functions be located at multiple locations in the charging network, and will be described in greater detail below with respect to the offline embodiment illustrated in
The raw IMS accounting message including charging event information may be sent to CDF 202, where it may be converted into an CDR. CDF 202 may examine the charging event information contained in the raw IMS accounting message and generate one or more CDRs. Because charging networks may include multiple CDFs 202 (e.g. one CDF 202 for each NE 200), a CDR generated by CDF 202 may be sent to CGF 204 for correlation and screening. In
However, because downstream applications 210 may benefit from receiving CDRs independently from BD 208, message copy function 208 may be located on CGF 204 and configured to copy all received CDRs and, in conjunction with a communications function (not shown), immediately forward them to application 210. One advantage of the subject matter illustrated in
In one scenario, application 210 may receive multiple SIP call signaling messages associated with a SIP session from a first instance of MCF 208 located at NE 200 and may fail to receive CDR message copies corresponding to the same session from a second instance of MCF 208 located at CGF 204. Thus, application 210 may determine that the subscriber associated with the SIP messages has successfully completed a SIP session, yet no billing information was generated. This may result, for example, from CTF 1002 failing to generate raw IMS accounting messages associated with the session or, alternatively, may result from CDF 202 failing to convert received raw IMS accounting messages into CDRs. Depending on the number and location of the message copy functions 208, and thus the types, timeliness and accuracy of the data provided to application 210, network operators may be better able to identify and correct billing errors and/or fraud.
OCS 800 may include an online charging function (OCF) 1200 for determining, based on the received IMS charging event information, the type of charging to apply to the transaction. For example, OCF 1002 may include a session charging function (SCF) 1202 for determining applicable charges associated with a SIP session and an event charging function (ECF) for determining applicable charges associated with a SIP event. It is appreciated, however, that additional charging functions may be included in OCF 1200 without departing from the scope of the subject matter described herein.
IMS charging event messages may be sent from OCF 1200 to a rating function (RF) 1206 for converting the information included in the IMS message into a IMS message that includes a monetary cost associated with the transaction. Rated IMS messages may be communicated to an account balance management function (ABMF) 1208 for processing, where ABMF 1208 may query prepaid application 802 to determine, for example, whether the user possesses enough prepaid credit to perform the transaction. In the embodiment illustrated in
According to another aspect of the embodiment illustrated in
It will be understood that various details of the presently disclosed subject matter may be changed without departing from the scope of the presently disclosed subject matter. Furthermore, the foregoing description is for the purpose of illustration only, and not for the purpose of limitation.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/927,730, filed May 4, 2007; the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3917915 | Karras | Nov 1975 | A |
4162377 | Mearns | Jul 1979 | A |
4191860 | Weber | Mar 1980 | A |
4310727 | Lawser | Jan 1982 | A |
4313035 | Jordan et al. | Jan 1982 | A |
4385206 | Bradshaw et al. | May 1983 | A |
4748653 | Kerr | May 1988 | A |
4756020 | Fodale | Jul 1988 | A |
4760594 | Reed | Jul 1988 | A |
4769834 | Billinger et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4788718 | McNabb et al. | Nov 1988 | A |
4811378 | Else et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4897835 | Gaskill et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4897870 | Golden | Jan 1990 | A |
4959849 | Bhusri | Sep 1990 | A |
4972461 | Brown et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5008929 | Olsen et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5134651 | Ortiz et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5150357 | Hopner et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5218632 | Cool | Jun 1993 | A |
5265157 | Jolissaint et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5291481 | Doshi et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5315580 | Phaal | May 1994 | A |
5361297 | Ortiz et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5402474 | Miller et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5408524 | Reum | Apr 1995 | A |
5426688 | Anand | Jun 1995 | A |
5430709 | Galloway | Jul 1995 | A |
5438570 | Karras et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5457729 | Hamann et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5473596 | Garafola et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5475732 | Pester, III | Dec 1995 | A |
5506893 | Buscher et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5509055 | Ehrlich et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5521902 | Ferguson | May 1996 | A |
5539804 | Hong et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5579371 | Aridas et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5592530 | Brockamn et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5606600 | Elliott et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5712908 | Brinkman et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5768352 | Elliott et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5774532 | Gottlieb et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5784443 | Chapman et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5854834 | Gottlieb et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5926533 | Gainsboro | Jul 1999 | A |
5949864 | Cox | Sep 1999 | A |
6016343 | Hogan et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6028914 | Lin et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6108782 | Fletcher et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6111946 | O'Brien | Aug 2000 | A |
6134307 | Broukman et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6137869 | Voit et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6249572 | Brockman et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256379 | Gillespie | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6327350 | Spangler et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6385301 | Nolting et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6826198 | Turina et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6854014 | Amin et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6891938 | Scott et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6968048 | Moisey et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6970542 | Moisey et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7023838 | Hahn et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7231024 | Moisey et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7626938 | Orr et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7797411 | Guruswamy et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7865944 | Shu et al. | Jan 2011 | B1 |
8179895 | Lean et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
20030016679 | Adams et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030026257 | Xu et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030096592 | Moreau et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030187800 | Moore et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040170133 | Oguchi et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040184440 | Higuchi et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040193909 | Chang et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040264405 | Scobbie | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050041584 | Lau | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050047569 | Moisey et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050111640 | Moisey | May 2005 | A1 |
20050276387 | Ethier et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050281399 | Moisey et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060291486 | Cai et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070041536 | Koskinen | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070091862 | Ioannidis | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070121615 | Weill et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070201621 | Ethier et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070226374 | Quarterman et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080010179 | Cai et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080205381 | Zhu et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080261559 | Cai et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20110280192 | Duan | Nov 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1 236 390 | Jan 2006 | CN |
0 088 639 | Sep 1983 | EP |
0 212 654 | May 1987 | EP |
0 258 654 | Mar 1988 | EP |
0 264 023 | Apr 1988 | EP |
0 487 197 | May 1992 | EP |
2 149 222 | Feb 2010 | EP |
58215164 | Dec 1983 | JP |
62200859 | Sep 1987 | JP |
WO 8401073 | Mar 1984 | WO |
WO 8603915 | Jul 1986 | WO |
WO 8800419 | Jan 1988 | WO |
WO 0120920 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO-02-098099 | Dec 2002 | WO |
WO 2008137116 | Nov 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Communication of European Publication No. and Information on the Application of Article 67(3) EPC for European Patent Application No. 08767552.6 (Jan. 7, 2010). |
Internation Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2008/005745 (Nov. 10, 2009). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Service and System Aspects; Telecommunication Management; Charging Management; Diameter Charging Applications,” 3GPP TS 32.299, v7.5.0 Release 7 (Mar. 2007). |
3GPP, “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Service and System Aspects; Telecommunication management; Charging management; Diameter charging applications,” 3GPP TS 32.299, v7.4.0. Release 7 (Dec. 2006). |
Openet Telecom, “Openet Announces Fusionworks IMS,” Press Release (Feb. 13, 2006). |
“TR 45 All-IP Core Network Multimedia Domain, IP Multimedia Subsystem—Changing Architecture,” PN-4935.7 (Publication date unknown). |
Calhoun et al., “Diameter Base Protocol,” Network Working Group, RFC 3588 (Sep. 2003). |
First Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Jan. 30, 2012). |
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration for International Application No. PCT/US02008/005745 (Aug. 19, 2008). |
Second Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Oct. 30, 2012). |
Supplemental Notice of Allowability for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (Apr. 9, 2012). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (Dec. 8, 2011). |
Interview Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (Aug. 29, 2011). |
Non-Final Official Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (May 25, 2011). |
Interview Summary for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (Jul. 15, 2010). |
Final Official Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (Mar. 3, 2010). |
Non-Final Official Action for U.S. Appl. No. 11/888,628 (Jun. 24, 2009). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 11/156,997 (Jan. 17, 2007). |
“GPRS Tunneling Protocol (GTP),” Trillium, Continuous Computing, pp. 1-3 (Copyright 2007). |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due for U.S. Appl. No. 10/654,499 (Aug. 1, 2005). |
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 10/654,499 (Jan. 28, 2005). |
“Digital Cellular Telecommunications System (Phase 2+); General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); GPRS Tunnelling Protocol (GTP) Across the Gn and Gp Interface (3GPP TS 09.60 version 7.6.0 Release 1998)”, ETSI TS 101 347, pp. 1-67 (Sep. 2000). |
Anonymous, “Operations, Maintenance and Administration Part (OMAP),” International Telecommunications Union, p. 485-531, (Jul. 27, 1999). |
General Signal Networks, “SS7 Performance Management System,” www.gsnetworks.com/powerof7/index.html (Downloaded Jul. 18, 1999). |
Danar Corporation, “About Syzgy,” (Downloaded Jul. 14, 1999). |
HOMISCO/VOICENET Inc., “Features,” www.homisco.com/SS7/page7.html (Downloaded Jul. 14, 1999). |
Wavtek Wandel Goltermann, “8620 SS7 Signaling Surveillance System,” Switching Test Solutions AG, (Jun. 15, 1999). |
Hanley, “Fight for the Future: Test Vendors Try to Get The Edge on Unstandardized Technology With Flexible, Forward-Thinking Products,” Telephony, p. 52-54, (Mar. 8, 1999). |
Data Gulper, “Load your data warehouse 10 times faster. Concurrently load up to 500+ online feeds. Filter out useful data and store it quickly,” Compendium Research Corporation, (May 2, 1998). |
TEKELEC, “EAGLE STP: STP-LAN Interface Feature,” (May 2, 1997). |
Hewlett Packard, “HP acceSS7 Signaling Monitoring System”, Hewlett Packard Co., (May 2, 1995). |
Tekelec, “Proposal for MCI Billing System,” (Nov. 2, 1993). |
Tekelec, “Common Channel Signaling System 7 Link Monitoring,” Response to Request for Proposal from Southwestern Bell Telephone (Jul. 2, 1993). |
Blake, “Fast, Smart and in Control Signaling System 7 is Helping Bring the Intelligent Network to the End User,” in Perspective, p. 20-23, (May 2, 1993). |
Bellcore, “Generic Requirements for Common Channel Signaling (CCS) Network Usage Measurement Functionality,” Technical Advisory, p. 1-76, (Dec. 2, 1992). |
Kritzmacher et al., “Recommendations for SS7 Reliability,” TE&M, p. 35-36, 38, (Nov. 1, 1992). |
Bellcore, “Request for Industry Input: Extending a Signal Transfer Point Adjunct Beyond Usage/Billing Measurements,” Digest, p. 33, (Jun. 2, 1992). |
Tekelec, “IDS Enhanced Gateway Billing System User's Manual,” (Jan. 22, 1992). |
Federal Communications Commission, “Notice of Inquiry,” Federal Communications Commission, (Dec. 6, 1991). |
TEKELEC, “Intelligent Database Services Billing System User's Manual,” p. 1-1-2-18, (Apr. 2, 1991). |
Hester, “Can You Afford to Be Without SS7 Network Surveillance,” Telephony, (Dec. 3, 1990). |
Lanning, “SS7 Interconnection Awaits Green Light,” Telephony's Transmission Special, p. 32, 34, (Nov. 2, 1990). |
Anonymous, “Intelligent Networking: CCS7 Message Detail Recording Enables Usage-Sensitive Billing at Gateway DMS-STPs,” p. 4-5, (Jul. 2, 1990). |
Telcordia Technologies, “A Framework of High-Level Requirements and Considerations for Common Channel Signaling Network Usage Measurements to Support Billing and Bill Verification,” Framework Technical Advisorv,p. 1-40, A-1-R-4, (Jan. 2, 1990). |
Buckles, “SS7 Gateways Serve and Protect,” Telephony, p. 39-41, 44, (Nov. 20, 1989). |
Rusin, “Voice Processing and the Intelligent Network,” TE&M, p. 51-68. |
Protocol Technologies, “Template Trap and Trace,” p. 7-1-7-52, (Feb. 2, 1989). |
Anonymous, “An Independent Future,” Rural Telecommunications, (1989). |
Anonymous, “A New Network,” TE&M, (Dec. 1, 1988). |
Marshall, “Maintaining the CCS Network,” TE&M, p. 78-80, (Nov. 1, 1988). |
Stusser, “Call Accounting Needs Five New Features,” Business Communication Review, p. 45-48, (Sep. 28, 1988). |
Anonymous, “Independent SS7 Network Questions and Answers,” (Aug. 2, 1988). |
Parsons, “Update: Financial Considerations and Network Control Most Important for Independent Telcos Examining SS7,” p. 1-4, (Aug. 2, 1988). |
Hilton et al., “Common Channel Signaling for Independents,” TE&M, (Jun. 15, 1988). |
Anonymous, “Independent SS7 Network SSP Solutions,” (May 2, 1988). |
Parsons, “A800: A Decision to Remain Independent,” p. 1-4, (May 2, 1988). |
Anonymous, “American National Standard for Telecommunications—Monitoring and Measurements for Signaling System 7 Networks,” (1988). |
Faletti et al., “Signaling System #7: The Corporate Network Backbone,” IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, Hollywood, Florida, p. 10.2.1-10.2.9, (1988). |
Rose, “Understanding the Intelligent Network,” OPASTCO ROUNDTABLE (1988). |
Titch, “The Pipe and the Protocol,” Closeup Supplement to Communications Magazine (1988). |
Protocol Technologies, “#7 MGTS Monitor Trap Overview,” MGTS User's Guide p. 5.9.0-5.9.36 (Dec. 2, 1987). |
Protocol Technologies, “Protocol Technologies User's Guide: Message Generator/Traffic Simulator,” p. 1-1-8-2 (Apr. 2, 1987). |
Chow et al., “CCITT Signaling System No. 7: The Backbone for Intelligent Network Services,” Globecom, p. 40.1.1-40.1.5, (1987). |
Worrall, “Virtual Network Capabilities—The Next Phase of the ‘Intelligent Network’,” Globecom (1987). |
Anonymous, “Systems Engineering Requirements for the 1ESS Switch Automatic Message Account Transmitter (AMAT),” Telcordia Technologies, Inc., (Abstract Only) (Nov. 2, 1985). |
Szybicki, “Adaptive, Tariff Dependent Traffic Routing and Network management in Multi-Service Telecommunications Networks,” Elsevier Science Publisher B.V., p. 614-621, (Sep. 4-11, 1985). |
Hayward, “Traffic Engineering in a New competitive Environment,” Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., p. 1112-1116, (May 24, 1985). |
Wang et al., “Database Administration System—Architecture and Design Issues,” The Bell System Technical Journal, p. 2431-2458, (Nov. 1982). |
Anonymous, “Billing Usage Measurements/Automatic Message Accounting,” Telcordia Technologies, Inc. Project Abstracts (Publication Date Unknown). |
Anonymous, “Block Diagram of Unisys SS7 Billing System,” (Publication Date Unknown). |
Anonymous, “Sterling 5000 Data Processing & Management System: Real Time Billing Data Collection and Processing System,”Telesciences, (Publication Date Unknown). |
Anonymous, “The Sterling Data Server Family: The Advanced Intelligent Network Billing Mediation Platform,” Telesciences, (Publication Date Unknown). |
DSC Communications, “DSC Signs Agreements With Unisys for Intelligent Network Measurement and Monitoring Systems,” Press. |
NORTEL, “CCS7 Message Record/Billing,” (Publication Date Unknown). |
SETTE, “Intermediate Signaling Network Identification,” (Publication Date Unknown). |
SETTE, “Intermediate Signaling Network Identification,” Bellcore, p. 1-10, (Publication Date Unknown). |
Fourth Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Sep. 16, 2013). |
First Examination Report for Indian Patent Application No. 7133/CHENP/2009 (Mar. 18, 2015). |
Rejection Decision for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Jun. 19, 2014). |
Fifth Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Jan. 23, 2014). |
Extended European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 08767552.6 (Jul. 29, 2013). |
Third Office Action for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Apr. 12, 2013). |
Reexamination Board Decision for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Sep. 30, 2015). |
Decision to Grant for European Patent Application No. 08767552.6 (Sep. 17, 2015). |
Communication under Rule 71(3)—Intent to Grant for European Patent Application No. 08767552.6 (Jul. 3, 2015). |
Notification of Reexamination for Chinese Patent Application No. 200880023074.X (Jun. 30, 2015). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080273679 A1 | Nov 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60927730 | May 2007 | US |