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 1-24 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 12-15, 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamphuis (US 2010/0298014).
In reference to claim 1
Kamphuis teaches a system comprising:
a first network environment (e.g. SMSR D1 and first Mobile Station associated with a first MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024) associated with a first plurality of numbers (e.g. first range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075) and comprising a first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D1 and the first Mobile Terminal associated with a first MSISDN number; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024), wherein the first network environment is configured to receive messages associated with any of the first plurality of numbers (par. 0074-0075),
a second network environment (e.g. SMSR D2 and second Mobile Station associated with a second MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024) associated with a second plurality of numbers (e.g. second range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075), and comprising a second set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 and second Mobile Station associated with a second MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024), wherein the second set of network elements includes at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 not in the first set; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075) wherein the second network environment is configured to receive messages associated with any of the second plurality of numbers (par. 0074-0075); and
an aggregator (e.g. HLR D or SMSR D Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075) configured to: receive a message, determine whether a number (e.g. MSISDN; par. 0074-0075) associated with the message is included within the first plurality of numbers or the second plurality of numbers, conditional upon determining that the number is included within the first plurality of numbers, transmit the message to the first network environment (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in first range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075); and conditional upon determining that the number is included within the second plurality of numbers, transmit the message to the second network environment to be processed by the at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements. (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in second range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075).
In reference to claim 4
Kamphuis teaches the first plurality of numbers (e.g. first range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075) is associated with a first identifier (e.g. address of SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075) corresponding to the first network environment, and wherein the second plurality of numbers (e.g. second range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075) is associated with a second identifier (e.g. address of SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075) corresponding to the second network environment.
In reference to claim 5
Kamphuis teaches a data storage element (e.g. table; par. 0074-0075) that stores relationships between (i) the first identifier and the first plurality of numbers, and (ii) the second identifier and the second plurality of numbers.
In reference to claim 8, 20
Kamphuis teaches the first network environment and the second network environment are mutually exclusive (e.g. SMSR D1 and SMSR D2 are mutually exclusive; see Fig. 5A-B, par. 0074-0075).
In reference to claim 12
Kamphuis teaches a method comprising:
receiving a message (par. 0074-0075);
determining whether a number (e.g. MSISDN; par. 0074-0075) associated with the message is included within a first plurality of numbers (e.g. first range MSISDN numbers associated with SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075) or a second plurality of numbers (e.g. second range MSISDN numbers SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075);
configuring a first network environment to comprise a first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D1 and first Mobile Station associated with a first MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024);
configuring a second network environment to comprise a second set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 and second Mobile Station associated with a second MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024), wherein the second set of network elements includes at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 not in the first set; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075)
conditional upon determining that the number is included within the first plurality of numbers, transmitting the message to a first network environment (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in first range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075); and
conditional upon determining that the number is included within the second plurality of numbers, transmitting the message to a second network environment to be processed by the at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in second range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075).
In reference to claim 13
Kamphuis teaches determining whether the number (e.g. MSISDN; par. 0074-0075) associated with the message is included within the first plurality of numbers (e.g. first range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075) or the second plurality of numbers (e.g. second range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075) comprises accessing a data storage element (e.g. table par. 0074-0075) that stores information indicative of the first plurality of numbers and the second plurality of numbers.
In reference to claim 14
Kamphuis teaches transmitting the message to the first network environment comprises identifying a first identifier (e.g. address of SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075) corresponding to the first network environment, the first identifier associated with the first plurality of numbers, and wherein transmitting the message to the second network environment comprises identifying a second identifier (e.g. address of SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075) corresponding to the second network environment, the second identifier associated with the second plurality of numbers.
In reference to claim 15
Kamphuis teaches identifying the first identifier and identifying the second identifier each comprises accessing a data storage element (e.g. table; par. 0074-0075) that stores relationships between: (i) the first identifier and the first plurality of numbers, and (ii) the second identifier and the second plurality of numbers.
In reference to claim 24
Kamphuis teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g. memory; par. 0077, 0079-0080) storing instructions that are executable by a processing device, and upon such execution cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a message (par. 0074-0075);
determining whether a number (e.g. MSISDN; par. 0074-0075) associated with the message is included within a first plurality of numbers (e.g. first range MSISDN numbers associated with SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075) or a second plurality of numbers (e.g. second range MSISDN numbers SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075);
configuring a first network environment to comprise a first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D1 and first Mobile Station associated with a first MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024);
configuring a second network environment to comprise a second set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 and second Mobile Station associated with a second MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024), wherein the second set of network elements includes at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 not in the first set; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075)
conditional upon determining that the number is included within the first plurality of numbers, transmitting the message to a first network environment (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in first range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D1; par. 0074-0075); and
conditional upon determining that the number is included within the second plurality of numbers, transmitting the message to a second network environment to be processed by the at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in second range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphuis (US 2010/0298014) in view of Pezeshki (US 2003/0228866).
In reference to claim 2
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim
Kamphuis does not teach the message is a short message service (SMS) message or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message, and wherein the aggregator comprises at least one of a SMS gateway or a MMS gateway for transmitting the message to the first network environment or to the second network environment.
Pezeshki teaches the message is a short message service (SMS) message (e.g. SMS message; par. 0048) or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message, and wherein the aggregator comprises at least one of a SMS gateway (e.g. SMSGW 112 Fig. 1; par. 0049) or a MMS gateway for transmitting the message to a first network environment (e.g. first SMSC 108 in Fig. 1; par. 0049-0050) or to a second network environment (e.g. second SMSC 108 in Fig. 1; par. 0049-0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the message and aggregator gateway for transmitting the message to the first network environment or to the second network environment of Kamphuis to be a short message service (SMS) message or a multimedia messaging service (MMS) message and at least one of a SMS gateway or a MMS gateway as suggested by Pezeshki because it would allow a SMS gateway to receive messages in an SMS format and forward them to the first network environment or to the second network environment based upon an MSISDN for further processing or delivery to a target destination.
In reference to claim 3
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach the first network environment and the second network environment each comprises at least one of a short message service center (SMSC) or a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC).
Pezeshki teaches a first network environment (e.g. first SMSC 108 in Fig. 1; par. 0049-0050) and a second network environment (e.g. second SMSC 108 in Fig. 1; par. 0049-0050) each comprises at least one of a short message service center (SMSC) or a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first network environment and the second network environment of Kamphuis to each comprises at least one of a short message service center (SMSC) or a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC) as suggested by Pezeshki because it would provide for a network element to store and forward messages to a target destination.
In reference to claim 16-17
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim. Kamphuis further teaches receiving the message at an aggregator (e.g. HLR D or SMSR D Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075).
Kamphuis does not teach the aggregator comprising at least one of a short message service gateway (SMS-GW) or a multimedia messaging service gateway (MMS-GW).
Pezeshki teaches at least one of a short message service gateway (SMS-GW) (e.g. SMSGW 112 Fig. 1; par. 0049) or a multimedia messaging service gateway (MMS-GW) or transmitting a message (e.g. SMS message; par. 0048) via at least one of the short message service gateway (SMS-GW) (e.g. SMSGW 112 Fig. 1; par. 0049-0050) or the multimedia messaging service gateway (MMS-GW).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aggregator and transmitting the message to the first network environment and transmitting the message to the second network environment of Kamphuis to be at least one of a SMS gateway or a MMS gateway and transmitting the message via at least one of the short message service gateway (SMS-GW) or the multimedia messaging service gateway (MMS-GW) as suggested by Pezeshki because it would allow a SMS gateway to receive messages in an SMS format and forward them to a first network environment or second network environment based upon an MSISDN for further processing or delivery to a target destination.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphuis (US 2010/0298014) in view of Bouckaert et al. (US 2012/0115457).
In reference to claim 6
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach the first plurality of numbers and the second plurality of numbers correspond to numbers that are assigned using over-the-air provisioning.
Bouckaert et al. teaches numbers (e.g. MSISDNs; par. 0018) that are assigned using over-the-air provisioning (par. 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kamphuis to include the first plurality of numbers and the second plurality of numbers correspond to numbers that are assigned using over-the-air provisioning as suggested by Bouckaert et al. because it would allow the numbers to be remotely provisioned instead of physically accessed and provisioned.
In reference to claim 18
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach assigning the number associated with the message using over-the-air provisioning, prior to determining whether the number associated with the message is included within the first plurality of numbers or the second plurality of numbers.
Bouckaert et al. teaches assigning a number (e.g. MSISDN; par. 0018) using over-the-air provisioning (par. 0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kamphuis to include assigning the number associated with the message using over-the-air provisioning, prior to determining whether the number associated with the message is included within the first plurality of numbers or the second plurality of numbers as suggested by Bouckaert et al. because it would allow the numbers to be remotely provisioned instead of physically accessed and provisioned.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphuis (US 2010/0298014) in view of Koyama (US 2001/0027101).
In reference to claim 7, 19
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach the first network environment and the second network environment are operated by a single business entity.
Koyama teaches the first network environment (e.g. first network 31; par. 0034) and the second network environment (e.g. second network 32; par. 0034) are operated by a single business entity (e.g. single company; par. 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first network environment and the second network environment of Kamphuis to be operated by a single business entity as suggested by Koyama because it would allow a single company to operate multiple network environments based on business needs.
Claim(s) 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphuis (US 2010/0298014) in view of Muhonen (US 2005/0181788).
In reference to claim 9, 21
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach a portion of network elements of the first network environment overlaps with network elements of the second network environment.
Muhonen teaches a portion of network elements of a first network environment overlaps with network elements of a second network environment (e.g. network elements of network environment of operator A overlap with network elements of network environment of operator B; par. 0044).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first network environment and the second network environment of Kamphuis to include a portion of network elements that overlap as suggested by Muhonen because it would reduce cost by allow network elements to be shared.
Claim(s) 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamphuis (US 2010/0298014) in view of Pai et al. (US 2023/0073760) in view of Cantwell et al. (US 2018/0013657).
In reference to claim 10
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach the first network environment is operated to test, wherein the second network environment is operated to test, and wherein the first network environment and the second network environment are simultaneously operated.
Pai et al. teaches the first network environment (e.g. first realm of parallelized test environment; par. 0041-0046) is operated to test, wherein the second network environment (e.g. second realm of parallelized test environment; par. 0041-0046) is operated to test, and wherein the first network environment and the second network environment are simultaneously operated (e.g. first realm and second realm are operated in parallel; par. 0041-0046).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first network environment and the second network environment of Kamphuis to be operated to test wherein the first network environment and the second network environment are simultaneously operated as suggested by Pai et al. because it would save time by allowing testing to be performed in the first network environment and the second network environment in parallel.
The combination of Kamphuis and Pai et al. does not teach testing a first network environment feature and testing a second network environment feature that is distinct from the first network environment feature.
Cantwell et al. teaches testing a first network environment feature and testing a second network environment feature that is distinct from the first network environment feature. (par. 0036)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kamphuis and Pai et al. to include testing a first network environment feature and testing a second network environment feature that is distinct from the first network environment feature as suggested by Cantwell et al. because it would allow for different features to be tested in the first and second network environments to facilitate the collection of a greater range of test data.
In reference to claim 22
Kamphuis teaches a system and method that covers substantially all limitations of the parent claim.
Kamphuis does not teach operating the first network environment to test; and simultaneously operating the second network environment to test.
Pai et al. teaches operating the first network environment (e.g. first realm of parallelized test environment; par. 0041-0046) to test; and simultaneously (e.g. first realm and second realm are operated in parallel; par. 0041-0046) operating the second network environment (e.g. second realm of parallelized test environment; par. 0041-0046) to test.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kamphuis to include operating the first network environment to test; and simultaneously operating the second network environment to test as suggested by Pai et al. because it would save time by allowing testing to be performed in the first network environment and the second network environment in parallel.
The combination of Kamphuis and Pai et al. does not teach testing a first network environment feature and testing a second network environment feature that is distinct from the first network environment feature.
Cantwell et al. teaches testing a first network environment feature and testing a second network environment feature that is distinct from the first network environment feature. (par. 0036)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kamphuis and Pai et al. to include testing a first network environment feature and testing a second network environment feature that is distinct from the first network environment feature as suggested by Cantwell et al. because it would allow for different features to be tested in the first and second network environments to facilitate the collection of a greater range of test data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections because the cited references, whether taken alone or in proper combination, do not describe or suggest all features in amended independent claims 1, 12, and 24.
For example, amended independent claim 1 recites, among other things, "a first network environment associated with a first plurality of numbers and comprising a first set of network elements," “a second network environment associated with a second plurality of numbers and comprising a second set of network elements, wherein the second set of network elements includes at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements," and "conditional upon determining that the number is included within the second plurality of numbers, transmit[ting] the message to the second network environment to be processed by the at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements." The cited references fail to describe or suggest at least these features.
Specifically, the Office Action asserts that Kamphuis allegedly discloses the claimed first and second network environments and the conditional transmission of a message to the second network environment based on a number association. See Office Action at pp. 2-3. Kamphuis, however, fails to disclose or render obvious, inter alia, "a first network environment...comprising a first set of network elements,""a second network environment...comprising a second set of network elements, wherein the second set of network elements includes at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements, and, "conditional upon determining that the number is included within the second plurality of numbers, transmit[ting] the message to the second network environment to be processed by the at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements," as now recited as a consequence of the amendments set forth above (emphasis added). Instead, Kamphuis describes a symmetric load-balancing configuration where the first and second environments (SMSR D1 and D2) are functionally identical. See Kamphuis at [0074] [0075].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kamphuis teaches a first network environment (e.g. SMSR D1 and first Mobile Station associated with a first MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024) associated with a first plurality of numbers (e.g. first range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075) and comprising a first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D1 and the first Mobile Terminal associated with a first MSISDN number; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024). Kamphuis teaches a second network environment (e.g. SMSR D2 and second Mobile Station associated with a second MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024) associated with a second plurality of numbers (e.g. second range MSISDN numbers; par. 0074-0075), and comprising a second set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 and second Mobile Station associated with a second MSISDN number; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075, 0032, 0022-0024), wherein the second set of network elements includes at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. SMSR D2 not in the first set; Fig. 5A-B; par. 0074-0075). Kamphuis teaches conditional upon determining that the number is included within the second plurality of numbers, transmitting the message to a second network environment to be processed by the at least one network element that is not present in the first set of network elements (e.g. upon determining MSISDN in the message is included in second range of MSISDN numbers, transmit the message to SMSR D2; par. 0074-0075).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466