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 .
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2026 and 02/25/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The modifications to the drawings were received on 04/30/2026. These modifications are accepted by the Examiner.
In view of the amendment filed on 04/30/2026, the Examiner withdraws Drawing objections of the previous Office action.
Specification
The modifications to the specification were received on 04/30/2026. These modifications are accepted by the Examiner.
In view of the amendment filed on 04/30/2026, the Examiner withdraws Specification objections of the previous Office action.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim rejections under 35 USC §103:
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends:
“The independent claims recite that a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) performs both a port in and port out procedure for a network switch. In contrast, neither Jiang nor Haswarey, alone, or in combination, discloses or suggests that an MVNO performs both a port in and port out for a network switch. The Office Action relies on Jiang as teaching traditional Mobile Number Portability (MNP), but in MNP one traditional Mobile Network Operator (MNO) performs port out (i.e., number range holder network 102 in Jiang) and a second and different MNO performs port in (i.e., subscription network 104 in Jiang). Thus, even in the primary reference Jiang, two different operators perform each side of the port in and port out, respectively. In view of the above, even if the Office Action uses Haswarey to disclose a "virtual" operator and to transform one or both operators in Jiang into an MVNO, that would still result in two different operators (either traditional MNO or MVNO) on both sides of the network switch, respectively, rather than a single MVNO performing both port in and port out for the same network switch. In other words, neither reference, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests merging the operators in Jiang so that the same MVNO performs both the port in and the port out for the network switch. Moreover, this nonobvious difference follows naturally from the fact that Jiang discloses traditional MNP for traditional MNOs and, therefore, does not envision or contemplate the innovative concept of an MVNO performing both the port in and the port out for the same network switch in accordance with the independent claims. Haswarey does disclose an MVNO but discloses nothing about number porting and, therefore, does nothing to cure this specific deficiency in Jiang by merging the operators in Jiang, as either MNOs or MVNOs, into a single MVNO that obviously satisfies the independent claims. In other words, even if Haswarey does suggest replacing an MNO in Jiang with an MVNO, Haswarey does not further suggest merging operators in Jiang SO that the same operator, as either an MNO or an MVNO, performs both the port in and port out for the same network switch, as recited in the independent claims.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner disagrees, and asserts that, as indicated by MPEP 2144.V.B making integral units 102 and 104 in Jiang is not patentability different “In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.")”
Haswarey discloses a MVNO “Mobile wireless network operator (MNO) carriers are known to provide radio access network (RAN) support for mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs). In a particular arrangement of interest herein, a heavy MVNO includes a fully operational core network but does not own/operate RAN infrastructure or may own/operate a RAN with limited coverage”
Independently of making integral, MVNO does not own the MNO, but the MVNO includes the fully operation core. In this enrolment where the MVNO has fully operation core network of MNO, the MVNO will have fully operation to the block 102 and 104, so it is just obvious engineering choice that the MVNO produce the port-in and port-out.
In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense."
In this particular case there is a finite number of identified predictable solutions: MNO take control or the MVNO, and the MVNO has fully operation core network, so it is just common sense for the MVNO to do the pot-in and port-out, “would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."
For these reasons, and the reasons of the precious Office action, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (US 20070155382 A1) in view of Haswarey (US 20240224020 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20 Jiang discloses receiving, at a mobile network operator, a request for the mobile network operator to perform a network switch by porting a phone number of a client of the mobile network operator from a source network infrastructure of a source mobile network operator that is serving the client for the mobile virtual network operator to a target network infrastructure of a target mobile network operator that is serving clients for the mobile network operator (abstract figure 2 blocks 202-204 paragraphs [0026]-[0027] “A system and method for providing mobile number portability. The system includes a first Mobile Number Portability Node (MNPN) coupled to a first network. The first MNPN receives a first query for one or more ported-out numbers from a Home Location Register (HLR), coupled to the first network. The first MNPN further sets in the HLR, a location information entry corresponding to each of the ported-out numbers to an address of the first MNPN. The system further includes a second MNPN coupled to a second network. The second MNPN receives a second query for one or more ported-in numbers from a Gateway Mobile Switching Center (GMSC), coupled to the second network.”); porting out, by the mobile network operator in response to the request, the phone number from the source network infrastructure of the source mobile network operator (abstract figure 2 blocks 202-204 paragraphs [0026]-[0027] “A system and method for providing mobile number portability. The system includes a first Mobile Number Portability Node (MNPN) coupled to a first network. The first MNPN receives a first query for one or more ported-out numbers from a Home Location Register (HLR), coupled to the first network. The first MNPN further sets in the HLR, a location information entry corresponding to each of the ported-out numbers to an address of the first MNPN. The system further includes a second MNPN coupled to a second network. The second MNPN receives a second query for one or more ported-in numbers from a Gateway Mobile Switching Center (GMSC), coupled to the second network.”); and porting in, by the mobile network operator in response to the same request, the phone number into the target network infrastructure of the target mobile network operator such that the mobile network operator provides telecommunication service to the client through the target network infrastructure (abstract figure 2 blocks 202-204 paragraphs [0026]-[0027] “A system and method for providing mobile number portability. The system includes a first Mobile Number Portability Node (MNPN) coupled to a first network. The first MNPN receives a first query for one or more ported-out numbers from a Home Location Register (HLR), coupled to the first network. The first MNPN further sets in the HLR, a location information entry corresponding to each of the ported-out numbers to an address of the first MNPN. The system further includes a second MNPN coupled to a second network. The second MNPN receives a second query for one or more ported-in numbers from a Gateway Mobile Switching Center (GMSC), coupled to the second network.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
457
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jiang doesn’t specifically disclose a virtual network. Haswarey discloses a virtual network (title abstract figure 1 and 3 MVNO paragraphs [0005], and [0012]-[0029] “A system and method are described that are carried out by a core network element of a primary network operator (NO) to manage agreement-based limited usage of roaming mobile wireless data services of a secondary mobile network operator (MNO) by roaming user equipment (UE) devices of a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) in accordance with usage limiting terms arising from an agreement between the primary NO and the MVNO”).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
749
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jiang and Haswarey are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Jiang the virtual network disclosed by Haswarey. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to support for user equipment, including Internet of things devices, associated with mobile virtual network operators (see Haswarey abstract and paragraph [0001]). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 1 and 11, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that mobile virtual network operator already possessing the client-specific information including at least two of the following: an account number, an address, or a pin number (see Haswarey paragraph [0011] “In operation, a UE device of a customer of the MVNO issues a connection request to a RAN of the secondary MNO including an IMSI assigned to the UE device” so the information of the customer is known including at least address and customer account number).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 1 and 11, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art the request is issued in response to the mobile virtual network operator detecting a deficiency in service provided by the mobile virtual network operator to the client (see Haswarey paragraph [0010] “A system, in accordance with the present disclosure, includes a primary MNO hosting UE devices associated with an MVNO and that may operate in a geographic region requiring the use of a secondary MNO for which the MVNO has not established a data services agreement to provide roaming mobile wireless data services MVNO-affiliated UE devices” so the information of the customer is known including at least address and customer account number).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 3 and 13, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art detects the deficiency in service by receiving a report from the client (see Haswarey paragraph [0011] “In operation, a UE device of a customer of the MVNO issues a connection request to a RAN of the secondary MNO including an IMSI assigned to the UE device”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 1 and 11, Jiang also discloses that the network switch is performed after the client has already been onboarded with the mobile virtual network operator through the source network infrastructure of the source mobile network operator rather than performing the network switch as part of onboarding the client with the mobile virtual network operator (abstract figure 2 blocks 202-204 paragraphs [0026]-[0027] “A system and method for providing mobile number portability. The system includes a first Mobile Number Portability Node (MNPN) coupled to a first network. The first MNPN receives a first query for one or more ported-out numbers from a Home Location Register (HLR), coupled to the first network. The first MNPN further sets in the HLR, a location information entry corresponding to each of the ported-out numbers to an address of the first MNPN. The system further includes a second MNPN coupled to a second network. The second MNPN receives a second query for one or more ported-in numbers from a Gateway Mobile Switching Center (GMSC), coupled to the second network.”)
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 1 and 11, Jiang also discloses performing, by the mobile virtual network operator in response to the same request, a network switch validation to ascertain whether the network switch is permitted (abstract figure 2 blocks 202-204 paragraphs [0004]-[0006] “The MNPDB stores information for all ported numbers. Multiple networks in same country may share the MNPDB. The query is to check whether the number is a ported number or a non-ported number. This direct routing technique is not suitable for international calls from outside the country since it is not practical for a GMSC outside the country to query the MNPDB in the country”)
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 6 and 16, Jiang also discloses whether the target mobile network operator has a target configuration available that satisfies a consistency policy with a source configuration of the client on the source mobile network operator (abstract figure 2 blocks 202-204 paragraphs [0004]-[0006] “The MNPDB stores information for all ported numbers. Multiple networks in same country may share the MNPDB. The query is to check whether the number is a ported number or a non-ported number. This direct routing technique is not suitable for international calls from outside the country since it is not practical for a GMSC outside the country to query the MNPDB in the country”)
Regarding claim 10, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claim 1, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art maintaining continuity of client-specific account information across the network switch and the client-specific account information includes at least two items of information from a mobile value added service, an account difference, historical data, personal identifiable information, resource exchange settings, an activation or migration date, a device security, or a device active status (see Haswarey paragraph [0011] “In operation, a UE device of a customer of the MVNO issues a connection request to a RAN of the secondary MNO including an IMSI assigned to the UE device” so the information of the customer is known including at least address and customer account number).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang and Haswarey as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20180167853 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 1 and 11, Jiang also discloses SIM (see paragraph [0080]). Jiang and Haswarey don’t disclose the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses a physical subscriber identity module card for the target mobile network operator and facilitates provisioning the physical subscriber identity module card to a device of the client as part of completing the network switch. Wang discloses mobile network operator uses a physical subscriber identity module card for the mobile network operator provisioning the physical subscriber identity module card to a device of the client as part of completing the network switch (abstract paragraph [0044]-[0099] “A first operating system receives an incoming call of a first SIM card; a second operating system triggers an event to notify the first operating system of an incoming call of a second SIM card upon receiving the same”). Jiang, Haswarey and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Jiang and Haswarey the SIM card disclosed by Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to use a well-known incoming call processing with SIM cards (Wang paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Jiang and Haswarey disclose claims 1 and 11, Jiang also discloses SIM (see paragraph [0080]). Jiang and Haswarey don’t disclose that the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses a machine-to-machine electronic subscriber identity module for the target mobile network operator and the mobile virtual network operator performs the network switch in a manner that is invisible to the client. Wang discloses the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses a machine to machine electronic subscriber identity module for the target mobile network operator and the mobile virtual network operator performs the network switch in a manner that is invisible to the client (abstract paragraph [0044]-[0099] “A first operating system receives an incoming call of a first SIM card; a second operating system triggers an event to notify the first operating system of an incoming call of a second SIM card upon receiving the same”). Jiang, Haswarey and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by Jiang and Haswarey the SIM card disclosed by Wang. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to use a well-known incoming call processing with SIM cards (Wang paragraph [0001]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights