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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/16/2025, 08/25/2025 and 01/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“304” (see figure 3).
“206” (see figure 5D)
“226” (see figure 5D);
“802” (see figure 9);
“1206” (see figure 12);
“1801” (see figure 18B);
“1814” (see figure 19A);
“1918” (see figure 19B);
“2014” (see figure 20A);
“2020” (see figure 20A);
“2022” (see figure 20A);
“2032” (see figure 20A);
“2040” (see figure 20A);
“2110” stop (see figure 21D);
“2172” stop (see figure 21E);
“2184” stop (see figure 21E);
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: invoice “511” (see page 29 paragraph [0137])
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "702" and "802" have both been used to designate Clear All (see figures 7, 8 and 9, 10, 11, 12.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1106" and "1206" and “1304” have both been used to designate Validate (see figures 11 and 12 and 13).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "306" (see figure 18A) and "1814" (see figure 19A) have both been used to designate Client.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2022” has been used to designate both MNO network coverage API (see figure 20A) and database (see page 54 paragraph [0196]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “2010” has been used to designate both a list (see page 44 paragraph [0178]) and stop (see figure 21D).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because uses phrases which can be implied, such as, “A disclosed method”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in page 54 paragraph [0196] line 6 “database 2022” seems to be improper because it is improperly constructed; it is suggested to be changed to “database 2122” (see page 54 paragraph [0196] line 5)
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112.
The use of the term “DUSH NETWORK, AT&T, T-MOBILE (see page 20), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Iyer (US 20160306965 A1) discloses user activity monitoring.
Jiang (US 20070191011 A1) discloses caller line identification in mobile number portability.
Van der Merwe (US 20120147824 A1) discloses methods and apparatus to configure virtual private mobile networks.
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