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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam (10,638,310) in view of Gupta (2024/0251230).
Regarding claim 1, Subramaniam discloses a method comprising receiving at a mobile operator a request for the operator to perform a network switch by porting a phone number of the client from a source network infrastructure to a target network infrastructure that serves clients of the mobile operators (abstract) and cloning in response to receiving the request a plurality of values (distributing the record data block to the second operator, 406, Col 2;24-36). Subramaniam discloses performing the network switch at least in part by referencing the cloned values such that a continuity of user experience is facilitated (Col 3;1-10 and Col 4;52-60). Subramaniam discloses that the user profile cloned includes personal identifiable information (MSISDN and IMSI). Subramanian fails to disclose cloned user profile includes at least two items from a set that comprise: mobile added value service, account difference, historical data, resource exchange settings, an activation or migration date, device security, or device active status.
However, Gupta teaches a network subscription management system in which user profile includes personal identification data (MSISDN, IMSI) and a device security (encrypted profile portion 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date of the invention to include at least two profile elements in order to provide a complete picture of a user’s account to an operator.
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Subramaniam discloses a system comprises at least one physical computing processor (Figure 5, apparatus 500 is a wireless network which contains processors) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (Figure 7, recording medium). Subramaniam discloses receiving at a mobile operator a request for the operator to perform a network switch by porting a phone number of the client from a source network infrastructure to a target network infrastructure that serves clients of the mobile operators (abstract) and cloning in response to receiving the request a plurality of values (distributing the record data block to the second operator, 406, Col 2;24-36). Subramaniam discloses performing the network switch at least in part by referencing the cloned values such that a continuity of user experience is facilitated (Col 3;1-10 and Col 4;52-60). Subramaniam discloses that the user profile cloned includes personal identifiable information (MSISDN and IMSI). Subramanian fails to disclose cloned user profile includes at least two items from a set that comprise: mobile added value service, account difference, historical data, resource exchange settings, an activation or migration date, device security, or device active status.
However, Gupta teaches a network subscription management system in which user profile includes personal identification data (MSISDN, IMSI) and a device security (encrypted profile portion 102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date of the invention to include at least two profile elements in order to provide a complete picture of a user’s account to an operator.
Claims 2-4, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Subramaniam and Gupta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bender (2024/0273570).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 2-4, the combination of Subramaniam and Gupta discloses all the particulars of the claim except the cloned plurality of values is at least three or five items in the set or wherein the cloned plurality of values for respective fields of the user profile specifies each item within the set. However, Bender discloses a wireless porting system in which the user profile (billing statement, Figure 1) includes at least three/five items in the set (Figure 1, user account includes 12 values including charges, account summary, etc.) Bender also teaches that bill/profile specifies each item within the set (each charge type is specified within the set of the entire bill). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to include multiple types of items in order to provide a complete data set for analysis.
Regarding claims 12-14, these claims recite the same limitations as claim 2-4 and are rejected for the same reasoning as given above.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 6, 8-10, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Subramaniam in view of Gupta as in the rejection of claim 1 above, and further in view of Eldar (2025/0142318).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claims 6, 9-10, the combination of Subramaniam and Gupta disclose all the particulars of the claim except the use of a GUI that an agent uses and where a request for porting is issued in response to a user reporting a deficiency in service. However, Eldar teaches in an analogous art, the use of a GUI for an agent to process inquiries (abstract, Fig 2a). Eldar further teaches that a user can report problems/deficiencies in the network to the agent (para 29-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a GUI for problem reporting in order to allow operators to manage their networks effectively.
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the limitations are the same as in claims 6 and 9 and are rejected for the same reasoning as given above.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Eldar further teaches that the mobile operator maintains a historical archive that links the previous account to the new account in the target network (para 35-37, historical data about porting information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include historical data in order to allow for retention decisions by the operator.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Subramaniam and Gupta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tagg (WO 2011/036484).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Subramaniam and Gupta disclose all the particulars of the claim except for a network switch is performed without disturbing a monthly recurring charge from the client. However, Tagg teaches a mobile system in which a subscriber can select different networks for use (Abstract) and that each network selection/switch is performed without disturbing the normal billing (Col. 21;10-20, single bill regardless of network selection and col 29;5-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a single bill in order to simplify the billing to the end user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior arts (Eldar, Subramaniam, Gupta) disclose that porting takes place and a GUI is used to notify retail operators about issues before porting but the prior art of record does not teach nor fairly suggest that a cross reference with a retail wireless database is performed upon performing a network switch / porting operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hieb (2023/0084923) disclose the use of sms messaging to perform porting of a mobile device.
Richards (9763093) disclose network monitoring for a mobile operator with respect to porting fraud.
Holtmanns (WO 2015/036816) disclose MVNO selection while roaming.
Fadell (2008/0085707) disclose MNVO selection based on realtime statistics such as billing rates or capacity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641