DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 5 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, on page 9 of Remarks, that “As a threshold matter, the Final Office Action characterizes Applicant's prior arguments as "moot because they do not apply to the new reference, Adolphe, that is relied on in the current rejection." Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization is misleading, if not incorrect. Adolphe was introduced solely to address the "retrieving, from a data store a first identifier" limitation added by amendment during the prior response. All other element mappings in the current rejection are carried forward unchanged: Haberkorn for the "receiving a request to initiate a telephone call" and "obtaining a first identifier uniquely identifying the mobile computing device" limitations. and Pecen for the "comparing the first identifier to a second identifier" and "holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process" limitations. Because the Haberkorn and Pecen mappings are unchanged, Applicant's prior arguments against those mappings remain fully applicable and are reasserted herein.”
On the contrary, the Remarks of 31 December 2025 do not traverse the mapping either Haberkorn or Pecen to any specific claim limitation. Rather, said Remarks comprise a side-by-side comparison of the specification of the instant invention and the principles of operation of Haberkorn. Therefore, these arguments are moot, because they do not relate to the reference, Adolphe, that was applied in the previous rejection to the new limitation in each of the independent claims.
Applicant asserts, on pages 9-10 of Remarks, that “Pecen Does Not Teach "Holding the Request to Initiate the Telephone Call in a Pending State While Invoking an Authentication Process" The Examiner maps the claim limitation requiring that the server "hold I the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call" to Pecen [0030], which discloses that when endpoint identifiers do not match, "at least one non-emergency operation of the mobile terminal is disabled." This mapping fails on three independent grounds. First, Pecen discloses disabling non-emergency operation, e.g., a blanket, device-side block on all non-emergency calls. Applicant's claim involves holding one specific call request in a pending state, e.g., a temporary, per-call server-side suspension that preserves the request for potential release upon successful authentication. These are categorically different responses to a mismatch condition. As described in the present specification, when a mismatch is detected, "the server computer will temporarily place the call in a suspended state, while an authentication process is performed." The call is not terminated or blocked; it is held so that it may proceed upon successful authentication. Pecen's blanket disable has no such preservation or conditional release mechanism.”
On the contrary, Pecen’s disabling of outgoing non-emergency communications is in the context of a specific call attempt. Pecen states, in paragraph [0027]: “In an embodiment, disabling a non-emergency function or operation could include comparing a dialed number for an attempted voice call with a predefined list of emergency numbers and, if the dialed number does not match any of the predefined emergency numbers, preventing connectivity of the attempted voice call. Alternatively, disabling a non-emergency function or operation could include determining whether an attempted outgoing communication is an emergency communication. If the attempted outgoing communication is an emergency communication, the outgoing communication is permitted, and if the attempted outgoing communication is not an emergency communication, the outgoing communication is prevented.” [emphasis added]. Additionally, Pecen states, in paragraph [0030]: “If the endpoint identifiers do not match, the flow moves to block 260, where at least one non-emergency operation of the mobile terminal is disabled.” [emphasis added]. Clearly, the call blocking function disclosed by Pecen is in relation to a specific call request.
Applicant asserts, on page 10 of Remarks, that “Second, Pecen has no authentication process triggered by the mismatch. Block 260 in Pecen's Figure 4 is a terminal branch-no authentication step, no challenge sent to the user, and no mechanism by which a disabled call can proceed. Applicant's claim explicitly states that the server is to "invok[e] an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call." The specification describes this authentication as comprising, for example, sending a passcode via a client messaging application and requiring the subscriber to respond via the native messaging application. Pecen discloses nothing of the sort.”
On the contrary, Pecen discloses that in the event non-emergency functions are blocked, the user may still place a call by successfully attesting that an outgoing call is an emergency call. Pecen states, in paragraph [0027]: “The determination of whether an attempted outgoing communication is an emergency communication is not necessarily done by looking numbers up on a predefined list. For example, this determination could be made by pressing a certain key on a keypad or by selecting a menu item in a graphical user interface. That is, the user asserts that a call is an emergency call, and there is no need to address the trustworthiness of the user in the application.” [emphasis added].
Applicant asserts, on page 10 of Remarks, that “Third, the entire Pecen operation is device-side at boot (comparing SIM-stored identifiers against fixed memory), not server-side upon receipt of a call request. The claimed architecture. which involves server receiving a call, holding it, authenticating. then processing, has no analog in Pecen. This architectural distinction is fundamental: Pecen's comparison occurs at device startup as a preventive measure; the claimed invention operates in real time at the moment a call is placed, with the server making the determination and controlling call flow.”
On the contrary, claim 1 recites a method, whereby a specific step of that method is performed by a server computer (e.g., “at a server computer of a communications service, receiving from the mobile computing device a request to initiate a telephone call”). Likewise, independent claim 8 recites a system that comprises one or more processors. Finally, claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that is executed by one or more processors. There is no explicit requirement that the step “upon determining a difference between the value of the first identifier and the stored value of the first identifier, holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call.” in claim 1 is performed by the server computer, and the counterpart limitation of this claim 1 limitation, in each of independent claims 8 and 15, could be performed by one processor of a plurality of processors, whereby there is no requirement in either claim 8 or claim 15 that this particular step is performed by a server-side processor.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-11 of Remarks, regarding the new limitation in each of the independent claims, are moot, because they do not relate to the new reference, Lu, that is relied on in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberkorn, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0048171 (hereinafter Haberkorn), in view of Lu, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0414086 (hereinafter Lu), further in view of Adolphe et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0168238 (hereinafter Adolphe), further in view of Pecen, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0330968 (hereinafter Pecen).
Regarding claim 1, Haberkorn discloses a computer-implemented method for detecting a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) swap at a mobile computing device configured to place and receive telephone calls via a native dialer application using a telephone number assigned to the SIM (disclosed is a method of a telephone network detecting fraudulent SIM usage, according to Abstract, [0001]-[0005], [0010]-[0011]), the method comprising:
at a server computer of a communications service, receiving from the mobile computing device a request to initiate a telephone call (a mobile user terminal places an outgoing telephone call via the mobile network, according to [0014]-[0017]);
obtaining a first value of a first identifier uniquely identifying the mobile computing device, and a second value for a second identifier uniquely identifying a subscriber to the communications service (an SS7 protocol simulator receives a mobile telephone number (MSISDN) [“a first value of a first identifier uniquely identifying the mobile computing device”] and a mobile subscriber identification (IMSI) of the associated SIM card [“a second value for a second identifier uniquely identifying a subscriber to the communications service”], according to [0040]).
Haberkorn does not expressly disclose that the first value of the first identifier is a hardware-specific identifier, nor retrieving, from a data record associated with the second value of the second identifier, a stored value of the first identifier; comparing the first value of the first identifier with a stored value of the first identifier; and upon determining a difference between the value of the first identifier and the stored value of the first identifier, holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call.
Lu discloses that the first value of the first identifier is a hardware-specific identifier (a server receives a MAC address of a particular mobile device, according to [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn with Lu such that the first value of the first identifier is a hardware-specific identifier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate dynamically associating mobile devices with software-defined networks (Lu: [0043]).
Neither Haberkorn nor Lu expressly discloses retrieving, from a data record associated with the second value of the second identifier, a stored value of the first identifier; comparing the first value of the first identifier with a stored value of the first identifier; and upon determining a difference between the value of the first identifier and the stored value of the first identifier, holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call.
Adolphe discloses retrieving, from a data record associated with the second value of the second identifier, a stored value of the first identifier (an active blocking (AB) model, which is periodically updated by a cloud-level device, performs call handling by checking [“retrieving, from a data record”] whether a caller’s IMEI is the IMEI [“a stored value of the first identifier”] that is associated with that caller’s known phone numbers [“second value of the second identifier”], according to [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu with Adolphe by retrieving, from a data record associated with the second value of the second identifier, a stored value of the first identifier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to block or reduce robocalls and associated fraudulent calls (Adolphe: [0004], [0011], [0068]-[0069]).
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, nor Adolphe expressly discloses comparing the first value of the first identifier with a stored value of the first identifier; and upon determining a difference between the value of the first identifier and the stored value of the first identifier, holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call.
Pecen discloses comparing the first value of the first identifier with a stored value of the first identifier (an endpoint identifier (which may be a globally unique identifier that is associated with the communications device, such as an internet protocol (IP) address, according to [0004]) is compared to the endpoint identifier stored in a fixed memory in order to determine whether they are the same, according to [0030], Fig. 4 [step 240]); and
upon determining a difference between the value of the first identifier and the stored value of the first identifier, holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call (if the endpoint identifiers do not match, then non-emergency operation of the mobile terminal is disabled (in other words, a telephone call can be placed only if said telephone call is an emergency telephone call), according to [0030], whereby, in the event that non-emergency functions are blocked, the user may assert that a call is an emergency call by pressing a particular key on a keypad or by selecting a menu item in a graphical user interface [“authenticate”], according to [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe with Pecen by comparing the first value of the first identifier with a stored value of the first identifier; and upon determining a difference between the value of the first identifier and the stored value of the first identifier, holding the request to initiate the telephone call in a pending state while invoking an authentication process to authenticate the subscriber before further processing the request to initiate the telephone call.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to discourage SIM card swapping (Pecen: [0025]).
Claim 8 recites a system, comprising one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (the mobile telephone network necessarily comprises a memory storing instructions and a processor that executes those instructions), cause the system to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (the mobile telephone network necessarily comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions and a processor that executes those instructions), cause the one or more processors to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
8. Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberkorn in view of Lu in view of Adolphe in view of Pecen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, further in view of Zheng et al., TW 202113717 A (hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, and Pecen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that invoking the authentication process comprises: sending a message including a passcode from a server computer of the communications service to a client messaging application via which the subscriber is currently logged in to a messaging service of the communications service; prompting a user of the computing device via the message to send a text message that includes the passcode to a particular telephone number using a native messaging application executing on the mobile computing device; and receiving, at a server computer of the communications service, the text message sent by the native messaging application, wherein successful receipt of the text message with the passcode authenticates the subscriber.
Zheng discloses that invoking the authentication process comprises:
sending a message including a passcode from a server computer of the communications service to a client messaging application via which the subscriber is currently logged in to a messaging service of the communications service (a message is sent from a server to a mobile phone user who is logged into an application, said message comprising a verification code, according to page 2 lines 1-13);
prompting a user of the computing device via the message to send a text message that includes the passcode to a particular telephone number using a native messaging application executing on the mobile computing device (the mobile phone user is prompted to send the verification code back to the server via an SMS message, according to page 2 lines 13-20); and
receiving, at a server computer of the communications service, the text message sent by the native messaging application, wherein successful receipt of the text message with the passcode authenticates the subscriber (the server receives the SMS message, and determines whether the verification code sent to the user via the application matches the verification code in the SMS message, according to page 2 lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen with Zheng such that invoking the authentication process comprises: sending a message including a passcode from a server computer of the communications service to a client messaging application via which the subscriber is currently logged in to a messaging service of the communications service; prompting a user of the computing device via the message to send a text message that includes the passcode to a particular telephone number using a native messaging application executing on the mobile computing device; and receiving, at a server computer of the communications service, the text message sent by the native messaging application, wherein successful receipt of the text message with the passcode authenticates the subscriber.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a simplified authentication process (Zheng: Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, Pecen, and Zheng discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that the native messaging application is configured to send and receive text messages using the telephone number assigned to the SIM.
Zheng discloses that the native messaging application is configured to send and receive text messages using the telephone number assigned to the SIM (the mobile phone is capable of SMS communication, according to page 2 lines 13-20).
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified as modified by Pecen with Zheng such that the native messaging application is configured to send and receive text messages using the telephone number assigned to the SIM.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen as modified by Zheng with Zheng such that the native messaging application is configured to send and receive text messages using the telephone number assigned to the SIM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a simplified authentication process (Zheng: Abstract).
Claims 9-10 do not differ substantively from claims 2-3, respectively, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claims 2-3, respectively.
Claim 16 does not differ substantively from claim 2, and therefore is rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
9. Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberkorn in view of Lu in view of Adolphe in view of Pecen as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Park et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0287896 (hereinafter Park), further in view of Zheng.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, and Pecen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that invoking the authentication process comprises: communicating a quick response (QR) code to a user of the mobile computing device via a client messaging application associated with a messaging service of the communications service executing on the computing device; prompting the user via the client messaging application to scan the QR code using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, and to send a text message including a passcode derived via the scanning of the QR code to a particular telephone number; wherein successful receipt of the text message with the derived code authenticates the subscriber.
Park discloses that invoking the authentication process comprises: communicating a quick response (QR) code to a user of the mobile computing device via a client messaging application associated with a messaging service of the communications service executing on the computing device (an authentication code is transmitted to a user device via a QR code at a website (a web browser constitutes a client messaging application), according to [0082]);
prompting the user via the client messaging application to scan the QR code using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, and to send a text message including a passcode derived via the scanning of the QR code (the user inputs the authentication code, as text-based information, into the terminal, which transmits this textual information to an SM-SR (subscription manager secure routing), according to [0082]-[0084], [0103], [0121], Fig. 3 [steps 306 and 308]);
wherein successful receipt of the text message with the derived code authenticates the subscriber (verification is performed by matching the received authentication code, according to [0109], Fig. 3 [step 311]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen with Park such that invoking the authentication process comprises: communicating a quick response (QR) code to a user of the mobile computing device via a client messaging application associated with a messaging service of the communications service executing on the computing device; prompting the user via the client messaging application to scan the QR code using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, and to send a text message including a passcode derived via the scanning of the QR code; wherein successful receipt of the text message with the derived code authenticates the subscriber.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a user’s changing of a subscription with a particular mobile network operator to a subscription with a different mobile network operator (Park: [0008]).
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, Pecen, nor Park expressly discloses that the text message including the passcode is sent to a particular telephone number.
Zheng discloses that the text message including the passcode is sent to a particular telephone number (the text message comprising the verification code that is sent to the server is an SMS message (and therefore is necessarily sent to a particular telephone number), according to page 2 lines 13-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen as modified by Park with Zheng such that the text message including the passcode is sent to a particular telephone number.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a simplified authentication process (Zheng: Abstract).
Claim 11 does not differ substantively from claim 4, and therefore is rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
10. Claims 5, 12, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberkorn in view of Lu in view of Adolphe in view of Pecen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, further in view of Kumar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0019425 (hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, and Pecen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that the second value of the second identifier is the telephone number of the subscriber, and wherein the server computer stores a data record that associates the stored value of the first identifier with the telephone number of the subscriber.
Kumar discloses that the second value of the second identifier is the telephone number of the subscriber, and wherein the server computer stores a data record that associates the stored value of the first identifier with the telephone number of the subscriber (a server stores a unique equipment identifiers in association with a phone number, according to [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen with Kumar such that the second value of the second identifier is the telephone number of the subscriber, and wherein the server computer stores a data record that associates the stored value of the first identifier with the telephone number of the subscriber.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce fraudulent mobile payments that are caused by unique equipment identifier spoofing and/or phone number spoofing (Kumar: [0047]).
Claims 12 and 17 do not differ substantively from claim 5, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, and Pecen discloses all the limitations of claim 15.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that upon successful authentication of the subscriber, updating a database to associate the obtained first value of the first identifier with the second value of the second identifier.
Kumar discloses that upon successful authentication of the subscriber, updating a database to associate the obtained first value of the first identifier with the second value of the second identifier (upon verification, a database is updated with the correspondence between a unique equipment identifier and a phone number…, according to [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen with Kumar such that upon successful authentication of the subscriber, updating a database to associate the obtained first value of the first identifier with the second value of the second identifier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce fraudulent mobile payments that are caused by unique equipment identifier spoofing and/or phone number spoofing (Kumar: [0047]).
11. Claims 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberkorn in view of Lu in view of Adolphe in view of Pecen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, further in view of Dos Remedios et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0286202 (hereinafter Dos Remedios).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, and Pecen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that the first identifier is a media access control (MAC) address of the mobile computing device, and obtaining the first value of the first identifier comprises: extracting the MAC address from a session initiation protocol (SIP) signal received at the server computer in association with the request to initiate the telephone call.
Dos Remedios discloses that the first identifier is a media access control (MAC) address of the mobile computing device, and obtaining the first value of the first identifier comprises: extracting the MAC address from a session initiation protocol (SIP) signal received at the server computer in association with the request to initiate the telephone call (for call admission, a terminal MAC address is extracted from a SIP message, according to [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen with Dos Remedios such that the first identifier is a media access control (MAC) address of the mobile computing device, and obtaining the first value of the first identifier comprises: extracting the MAC address from a session initiation protocol (SIP) signal received at the server computer in association with the request to initiate the telephone call.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide QoS in packet-based networks (Dos Remedios: [0003]-[0007]).
Claims 13 and 18 do not differ substantively from claim 6, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
12. Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberkorn in view of Lu in view of Adolphe in view of Pecen as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, further in view of Caudle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0331526 (hereinafter Caudle).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, and Pecen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Haberkorn, Lu, Adolphe, nor Pecen expressly discloses that obtaining the device identifier comprises: sending, from the server computer to the mobile computing device, a request to provide the device identifier; and receiving a response at the server computer from the mobile computing device, the response including the device identifier.
Caudle discloses that obtaining the device identifier comprises: sending, from the server computer to the mobile computing device, a request to provide the device identifier; and receiving a response at the server computer from the mobile computing device, the response including the device identifier (an access server requests a device ID from a mobile device, and in response, said mobile device sends its device ID to said access server, according to [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haberkorn as modified by Lu as modified by Adolphe as modified by Pecen with Caudle such that obtaining the device identifier comprises: sending, from the server computer to the mobile computing device, a request to provide the device identifier; and receiving a response at the server computer from the mobile computing device, the response including the device identifier.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate authorization of mobile device network access (Caudle: [0002]).
Claims 14 and 19 do not differ substantively from claim 7, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights