CTFR 18/298,575 CTFR 86017 DETAILED ACTION Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections Claim 3 as amended recites device capabilities, user subscription, and user activity characterized by of the user data (emphasis added). Examiner requests that “of” be dropped to cure any grammatical issues with the claim. Mirrored claims 11 and 18 do not share this deficiency. 35 U.S.C. § 101 07-04 AIA 07-04-01 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” Claims 16-19 recite a “One or more computer-readable storage media having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer-readable storage media”. ¶56 of Applicants’ specification when discussing this term explicitly excludes transitory embodiments (e.g. wireless signals). “[0064] As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method, or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware implementation, an entirely software implementation (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an implementation combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,”, “module”, or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable medium(s) having computer readable program code embodied thereon.” “[0056] Storage system 703 may comprise any computer readable storage media readable by processing system 702 and capable of storing software 705. Storage system 703 may include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Examples of storage media include random access memory, read only memory, magnetic disks, optical disks, flash memory, virtual memory and non-virtual memory, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other suitable storage media. In no case is the computer readable storage media a propagated signal. ” (emphasis added) . This means the claims cannot read on a propagated signal, and do not fail to come within one of the four statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101, since carrier waves, which are signals, are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 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 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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Automated Communications Device Field Testing, Performance Management, And Resource Allocation” by Shaw et al., US2011/0151863A1 (“Shaw”) in view of “Systems, Devices, And Methods For Providing A Dynamic Subscription Update Feature In A Wireless Communications Network” by Burnett and Poh US9,691,082B1 (“Burnett”) . With respect to claims 1, 9, 10, 16, and 17 , while Shaw discloses: A method of operating an application service of a wireless network (and related apparatus, and one or more computer-readable storage medium). comprising: receiving a request for a user experience flow from a client application of the wireless network executing on a user device (Shaw at Fig.1 and ¶¶16,17 where there is a request for a service, on a user device, and the request can be for: any appropriate service such as, for example, an instant messaging (IM) service, a multimedia service (MMS), a short messaging service (SMS), a voice service (a phone call), an email service, a connection to the Internet, or the like. The service can be an incoming service (e.g., incoming call, email, text, etc.) or an outgoing service (e.g., outgoing call, email, text, etc.)); receiving user data associated with the user device with respect to the wireless network, wherein the user data characterizes device capabilities, a user subscription, and user activity associated with the user device (Shaw at ¶18 “At step 18, subscriber profile information is obtained for a subscriber associated with the communications device. A subscriber can be associated with a communications device via any appropriate means, such as via an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI), or the like. For example, each subscriber can have one or more devices for using the services, and each device can be associated with a respective International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI). The device is identified by the IMSI. The subscriber is identified by a subscriber ID in the network and the MSISDN. In an example embodiment, the combination of the three defines the device, the subscriber, and the line used in a communication. For browsing or data session the device can send out a user agent string that declares its make/model, the IMSI is not sent in a browsing session. The subscriber profile information is indicative of services available to the subscriber and to the quality of services available to the subscriber”, also see Shaw at ¶¶19, 20 where the system receives data as to whether “the subscriber is entitled to the maximum resolution high definition video downloads, the performance of the service could be analyzed to assess if video was successfully download and the resolution of the video” and “ if it is detected, during download, that the resolution of the downloaded video is less than the maximum resolution, the capabilities of the communications device and the communications network are analyzed to determine if maximum resolution video is capable of being downloaded”); processing the user data according to an ordered set of conditions … until a satisfied condition is identified, wherein the satisfied condition … comprises a condition satisfied by the user data (See Shaw at ¶18, “The device is identified by the IMSI. The subscriber is identified by a subscriber ID in the network and the MSISDN. In an example embodiment, the combination of the three defines the device, the subscriber, and the line used in a communication. For browsing or data session the device can send out a user agent string that declares its make/model, the IMSI is not sent in a browsing session .” (emphasis added). For a web browsing session the set of conditions is ordered such that IMSI information is not sent. Also see Shaw at ¶38, 43 where the equipment can be authenticated via RADIUS, which is a protocol for authenticating users according to a set of conditions. Bear in mind “user data” is a broad term. Also see Shaw at ¶19, “That is, the performance of the service is analyzed as it applies to the subscriber. The performance can be analyzed by the communications device, via a communication network entity, or any combination thereof. As an example scenario, if the service request is for a download to the communications device of a video, and the subscriber profile information indicates that the subscriber is entitled to the maximum resolution high definition video downloads, the performance of the service could be analyzed to assess if video was successfully download and the resolution of the video. If any problems with the service exist, such as for example, anomalies, abnormal conditions, defects, shortages, problems with the service, or the like, they are detected at step 22. If there are no problems with the service as provided to the communications device, that is, if the service performance is satisfactory, the process proceeds to step 14 to continuously monitor the service performance.”); determining the user experience flow according to the satisfied condition, wherein the user experience flow comprises webpage content … associated with the satisfied condition (Shaw at ¶18 where the service requested is “browsing”. Browsing is a term used for surfing the internet via webpages. The applications used to view webpages are called “browsers”); and sending the user experience flow to the client application for display on the user device (Shaw at ¶20 where the content is sent to the user device via download, “For example, referring to the above example scenario, if it is detected, during download, that the resolution of the downloaded video is less than the maximum resolution, the capabilities of the communications device and the communications network are analyzed to determine if maximum resolution video is capable of being downloaded.” and ¶30 where the content can be displayed on the device, “The UI portion 40 is capable of rendering any information utilized in conjunction with automated communications device field testing, performance management, and resource allocation as described above. For example, the UI portion 40 can provide means for requesting/initiating a service, rendering text, rendering images, rendering multimedia, rendering sound, rendering video, or the like, as described above. The UI portion 40 can provide the ability to control the communications device 32, via, for example, buttons, soft keys, voice actuated controls, a touch screen, movement of the mobile communications device 32, visual cues (e.g., moving a hand in front of a camera on the mobile communications device 32), or the like. The UI portion 40 can provide visual information (e.g., via a display), audio information (e.g., via speaker), mechanically (e.g., via a vibrating mechanism), or a combination thereof. In various configurations, the UI portion 40 can comprise a display, a touch screen, a keyboard, an accelerometer, a motion detector, a speaker, a microphone, a camera, a tilt sensor, or any combination thereof.”) Shaw does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Burnett. Burnett discloses [processing the user data according to an ordered set of] conditions …that relate to potential subscription modifications for the user and [wherein the satisfied condition] (Burnett at 4:49-61 and 5:24-32 where the system can determine a need for a potential upgrade and process it. It is noted that the claim language uses a broad phrase “relate[s] to a potential subscription modification”, It could be argued that even the basic assessment of QoS in Shaw could “relate to” a modification, though at this time Shaw is not relied upon for this limitation. Also see Burnett at Fig. 3.) and [wherein the user experience flow comprises webpage content] that characterizes the subscription modification, (Burnett at 8:25-28 where the new service is provisioned, which to one of ordinary skill in the art would mean that the service in Shaw (webpage content) as changed by Burnett would result in webpage service to user at the modified subscription levels.” Reasons to Combine: Shaw and Burnett are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are all from the same field of endeavor, trying to provide and/or ensure a Quality of Service (QoS to a subscriber) (Burnett at Col 1:28-45 lay out s a suggestion for making a system like Shaw adaptive, “A subscriber may be allowed to upgrade or downgrade a service plan, or may be restricted to only upgrading the service plan during the obligation. If a subscriber is allowed to upgrade or downgrade, the subscriber can call a customer service representative or access the service provider's website to request the change, for example. Changes may be prorated or may be activated at the beginning of the next billing cycle. As such, a subscriber often must choose a service plan based upon the number of minutes or the data usage the subscriber predicts he or she will utilize during any given month. This is difficult to accurately predict and often results in the subscriber being charged with overage fees for minutes or data transfer beyond that specified under their service plan. Additionally, a service provider may benefit from offering to upgrade or downgrade a subscriber's service plan based upon subscriber history and subscriber usage data acquired from various network entities.”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shaw with Burnett to reduce the difficulty for users to accurately predict usage to avoid overcharges, as well as benefit the service provider by offering on the spot upgrades. Differences in Claim 9 : Claim 9 is drawn to a computing apparatus, see Shaw at ¶15 where the embodiment is a communications device. Differences in Claim 16 : Claim 16 is drawn to a computer readable medium embodiment, see Shaw at ¶66. With respect to Claim 2 , Shaw discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the user data associated with the user device comprises receiving the user data associated with the user device from the user device and from the wireless network (Shaw at ¶18 “The subscriber profile information can be obtained via any appropriate source. For example, subscriber profile information can be obtained via storage on the communications device such as memory (removable, non-removable, etc.), a subscriber identify module (SIM), or the like, via a communications network entity such as a server, a database, a Home Location Register (HLR), a Visitor Location Register (VLR), or the like, or any combination thereof.”). With respect to Claims 3, 11, and 18 , Shaw discloses: The method of claim 2, (and related apparatus, and one or more computer-readable storage medium) wherein processing the user data according to the ordered set of conditions until the satisfied condition is identified comprises checking each condition of the ordered set of conditions in succession against the device capabilities, user subscription, and user activity characterized by of the user data until a condition is satisfied by one or more device capabilities, user subscription, and user activity characterized of the user data (Also see Shaw at ¶38, 43 where the equipment can be authenticated via RADIUS, which is a protocol for authenticating users according to a set of conditions.) With respect to Claims 4, 12, and 19 , Shaw discloses: The method of claim 3, (and related apparatus, and one or more computer-readable storage medium)wherein each condition of the ordered set of conditions comprises a predicate which evaluates to True or False based on the one or more device capabilities, user subscription, and user activity characterized by the user data (Shaw at ¶38, 43 where the equipment can be authenticated via RADIUS, which is a protocol for authenticating users according to a set of conditions. RADIUS authentication functions off a true/false paradigm as evidenced by “Identity Broker Configured To Authenticate Users To Host Services” by Austin et al., US2011/0314533A1 at ¶6 “RADIUS, short for Remote Authentication Dial In User Service, is a networking protocol that allows users to connect to and use a network service. RADIUS operates as a client/server protocol, originally developed to authenticate users connecting to network services over telephone modems. A RADIUS server authenticates a user requesting access to a network device or hosted application by validating for a username and password submitted to the device requesting an authentication decision. That is, a RADIUS server responds to an authentication request with essentially a true/false message regarding the submitted credentials, such as a given username/password combination. Additionally, a RADIUS server can share certain accounting data with a network device or application (e.g., how much time a user has been (or is authorized to be) connected to a computing resource”). With respect to Claims 5 and 13 , Shaw discloses: The method of claim 4, (and related apparatus) wherein the user data characterizes: a plan type (Shaw at ¶18, “For example, subscriber profile information can be obtained via storage on the communications device such as memory (removable, non-removable, etc.), a subscriber identify module (SIM), or the like, via a communications network entity such as a server, a database, a Home Location Register (HLR), a Visitor Location Register (VLR), or the like, or any combination thereof.”, note: whether or not the user is in an HLR or VLR is indicative of whether the subscriber has a plan in that location where they are requesting service or their plan originates elsewhere.), a carrier type (note that an activated SIM card such as the one in Shaw contains a Service Provider Name aka SPN. Also note that Shaw recites an IMSI, an Internation Mobile Subscriber Number which also contains by default a Mobile Network Code which identifies the relevant carrier.), and a contract type of the user susbscription(Shaw at ¶18 “The subscriber profile information is indicative of services available to the subscriber and to the quality of services available to the subscriber. For example, and not intended to be limiting, subscriber profile information can include an indication as to whether the subscriber can receive and/or send text messages, whether the subscriber can receive and/or send email, whether the subscriber can receive and/or send email with multimedia attachments, whether the subscriber can receive and/or send video, applications available for download to the communications device, the resolution of multimedia/video, associated costs, or any combination thereof for example.”); a device type and an access type of the device capabilities (Shaw at ¶18, “For example, each subscriber can have one or more devices for using the services, and each device can be associated with a respective International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI). The device is identified by the IMSI. The subscriber is identified by a subscriber ID in the network and the MSISDN. In an example embodiment, the combination of the three defines the device, the subscriber, and the line used in a communication. For browsing or data session the device can send out a user agent string that declares its make/model ,” emphasis added. The line is the access type, make/model is the device type information. Shaw at ¶¶20,21 where the device and is resolution access are part of the data determined, also note “The QoS can provide an indication of bandwidth, throughput, power, encoding schemes, etc., or any combination thereof.”); and a data consumption rate of the user activity (Where the bandwidth, i.e,. data consumption is part of the user data.“The QoS can provide an indication of bandwidth, throughput, power, encoding schemes, etc., or any combination thereof.”). With respect to Claims 6 and 14, Shaw discloses: The method of claim 1 wherein the webpage content comprises selectable options to implement the subscription modification (Burnett at 11:8-45 where the system uses a webpage interface to offer subscription modifications to the user as well as a means for the user to accept the modification, “…the update offer can be presented to the user with options to accept or decline the update offer. Alternatively, the update offer can include one or more telephone numbers that can be used to contact a customer service representative to further explain the update offer and/or receive the subscriber's acceptance or decline of the update offer. A website can additionally or alternatively be provided.”) With respect to Claims 7 and 20 , while Shaw discloses: The method of claim 1 (and one or more computer-readable storage medium), Shaw does is not relied upon herein explicitly for: wherein receiving the request for the user experience flow occurs in response to the client application being launched on the user device (see ). However the preceding limitation in known in the art of communications. Shaw at ¶17 states that the service request is initiated by the user manually using the application. Herein the claim requires initiating a request upon the application launching as opposed to launching and then initiating being performed by a user as in Shaw. It is noted that automating a manual activity is considered per se obvious under MPEP 2144.04(III) “ In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).” Therefore based on the foregoing reasoning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shaw so that the request occurs automatically upon launching the application. With respect to Claim 8, Shaw discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the application service executes on the user device (Shaw at ¶¶20,30.) Response to Arguments Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments. Applicants' arguments involve discussing why the previously cited prior art documents fail to disclose the amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument persuasive and has brought in an additional reference to address the amended claim limitations. The applicability of the reference to the amended elements is discussed in the claim rejections above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p. 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 supervisory colleague, Alexander Sofocleous can be reached at 571-272-0635. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 2 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 3 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 4 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 5 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 6 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 7 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 8 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 9 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 10 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 11 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 12 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 13 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 14 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 15 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 16 Art Unit: 4100 Application/Control Number: 18/298,575 Page 17 Art Unit: 4100
Prosecution Insights