DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the cited prior art, Brown in view of Tilanus et al do not disclose a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) that is being served by a source mobile network operator (MNO) and a target MNO as recited in the claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. According to applicant’s specification, paragraph [0118], “the source MNO may include or may corresponds to the mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) (i.e., in scenarios where the mobile virtual network operator also functions as a mobile network operator by maintaining and operating its own network infrastructure in addition to utilizing the network infrastructure of one or more other distinct mobile network operators). Similarly, in some examples, the target mobile network operator includes, or may correspond to, the mobile virtual network operator”. Thus, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification according to MPEP 2111, the MVNO may be the same MNO or a part of the source MNO or the target MNO and the claim is interpreted that the source MNO is serving the client for the MVNO that is a part of or corresponds to the source MNO or the target MNO. Applicant further argues that Brown et al is not combinable with Tilanus. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the proposed combination of Brown and Tilanus would arguably be inoperable and arguably rests on a fundamental conflation of two different types of network switches, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Tilanus suggested that the rationale to port the subscriber’s phone number is to provide continuous connectivity and permanent reachability for the user of the terminal during the network switch from the first network to the second network (Tilanus; abstract), even though the references do not have to expressly suggested the motivation to combine in any of the references themselves but to the knowledge available to one of ordinary skill in the art, e.g. it is notoriously old and well-known in the art that porting a phone number would provide continuous connectivity without disruption or inconvenience for the user if the same phone number is used instead of having to change to a different phone number. Argument to amended claim 7 is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As a result, given the broadest reasonable interpretation according to MPEP 2111 (Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005), Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358F.3d 870,875, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the cited prior art still applies to the current claims 1 and 3-20.
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 1-3, 6, 11-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2021/0,297,941; hereinafter Brown) in view of Tilanus et al (WO 9,901,975; hereinafter Tilanus).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20, Brown disclose a system and method comprising: at least one physical computing processor of a computing device (processor; ¶ [0032]); and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one physical computing processor, cause the computing device to perform operations (a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor associated with a telecommunications network, causes the telecommunication network to perform the aforementioned method; paras. [0029]-[0031]), comprising: detecting, by a mobile virtual network operator, that an improvement in mobile telecommunication service would result from the mobile virtual network operator performing a network switch by porting a phone number of a client of the mobile virtual 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 virtual network operator (the mobile virtual network operator identifies a improved mobile network operator that is serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator having improved network characteristic(s) compared to the default/source mobile network operator; paras. [0007], [0009], [0057], [0059], [0067]); and
initiating proactively, by the mobile virtual network operator in response to detecting that the improvement in mobile telecommunication service would result from the mobile virtual network operator performing the network switch, the network switch from the source network infrastructure of the source mobile network operator that is serving the client for the mobile virtual network operator to the target network infrastructure of the target mobile network operator that is serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator (selecting the improved virtual mobile network operator based on the identified improved network characteristics and/or MNO selection rules and switching from the default mobile network operator to the improved virtual mobile network operator through which to continue to route the network communication; paras. [0007], [0009], [0075]-[0076], [0096], [0103]; Figs. 6-8). Brown do not explicitly disclose by porting a phone number of a client of the mobile virtual 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. In the same field of endeavor, Tilanus disclose porting a phone number of a client of the mobile virtual 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 (number portability procedure for carrying over the same telephone number when a user of a terminal switches to a second network; abstract; pg. 1, lines 1 – pg. 12, line 1, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide continuous connectivity and permanent reachability for the user of the terminal during the network switch from the first network to the second network (Tilanus; abstract).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 1 and 11 respectively, wherein detecting, by the mobile virtual network operator, that the improvement in mobile telecommunication service would result from the mobile virtual network operator performing the network switch comprises the mobile virtual network operator detecting a deficiency in service provided by the mobile virtual network operator to the client through the source network infrastructure of the source mobile network operator (Fig. 3b shows an exemplary dataset relating to available network services 320 for each available MNO 120, the dataset 320 includes a list of services 330 and flags as to whether or not each available MNO supports a given network service 330, further examples of network characteristics relating to available services for populating within the dataset 310, include status flags regarding the availability of: mobile telecommunications standards; network functions, such as network slicing, the available types of network slices and Voice Over Wi-Fi™; encryption including types, and security features more generally; specific codecs; and services that define a quality of service e.g. ultra-reliable, low latency communication, the datasets relating to network performance 310 and available services 320 are used to determine the improved MNO, Brown; paras. [0058]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 1 and 11 respectively, wherein detecting, by a mobile virtual network operator, that the improvement in mobile telecommunication service would result from the mobile virtual network operator performing the network switch comprises detecting that the target mobile network operator would provide a higher score in terms of resource performance than a lower score provided by the source mobile network operator (further examples of network performance parameters for populating within the dataset 310 and for use in identifying the improved MNO, include metrics and/or status flags regarding: jitter; bandwidth; throughput; wireless signal strength; and radiofrequency spectrum characteristics, the datasets relating to network performance 310 and/or available services 320 are used to determine the improved MNO, where a plurality of network characteristics are used to determine the improved MNO, the network parameters are ranked in order of, and/or weighted according to, importance; Brown, paras. [0057], [0062]).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 3 and 13 respectively, wherein detecting that the target mobile network operator would provide the higher score comprises determining that the target mobile network operator would improve mobile telecommunication speed, connectivity, coverage, or bandwidth in comparison to the source mobile network operator (further examples of network performance parameters for populating within the dataset 310 and for use in identifying the improved MNO, include metrics and/or status flags regarding: jitter; bandwidth; throughput; wireless signal strength; and radiofrequency spectrum characteristics; Brown, paras. [0057], [0059]-[0060]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2021/0,297,941; hereinafter Brown) in view of Tilanus et al (WO 9,901,975; hereinafter Tilanus) further in view of Wuerch et al (US 2014/0,051,417; hereinafter Wuerch).
Regarding claim 7, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 1 and 11 respectively, wherein they do not disclose a port-in application programming interface is provided by a mobile virtual network enabler; and the mobile virtual network operator initiates proactively the network switch at least in part by invoking the port-in application programming interface to port in the phone number of the client onto the target network infrastructure of the target mobile network operator. In the same field of endeavor, Wuerch disclose a port in application programming interface is provided by a mobile virtual network enabler; and the mobile virtual network operator initiates proactively the network switch at least in part by invoking the port in application programming interface to port in the phone number of the client onto the target network infrastructure of the target mobile network operator (the new member 102 may provide information via interface 120 in order to facilitate the activation, the carrier activation service may present one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to the account activation module in order to facilitate device activation and/or number porting, and the account activation module may call the one or more application programming interfaces to request number ports and service set-up on behalf of the new member 102; paras. [0013]-[0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to enable a service subscriber to activate a service and to interactively resolve activation issues using a web or a mobile device (Wuerch;
¶ [0008]).
Claims 8, 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2021/0,297,941; hereinafter Brown) in view of Tilanus et al (WO 9,901,975; hereinafter Tilanus) further in view of Kojima et al (US 2021/0,195,392; hereinafter Kojima).
Regarding claim 8 and 18, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 1 and 11 respectively, wherein they do not disclose the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses a physical subscriber identity module card for the target mobile network operator; and the mobile virtual network operator facilitates provisioning the physical subscriber identity module card to a device of the client as part of completing the network switch. In the same field of endeavor, Kojima disclose the network operator uses a SIM may be a physical SIM card lent or provided by the mobile virtual network operator to the subscriber to be inserted in a slot of the mobile device to connect to a wireless communication network during network switching from one mobile network operator or communication carrier to another; paras. [0027]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to identify a subscriber using a unique identification code, e.g. ISMI, for authentication purposes when the subscriber switches to another network.
Regarding claim 17, Brown and Tilanus disclose the system of claim 11, wherein they do not disclose the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses a consumer embedded subscriber identity module; and initiating proactively, by the mobile virtual network operator in response to detecting that the improvement in mobile telecommunication service would result from the mobile virtual network operator performing the network switch, the network switch comprises the mobile virtual network operator prompting the client to accept the consumer embedded subscriber identity module. In the same field of endeavor, Kojima disclose network operator uses a SIM that may be an embedded SIM (eSIM) in software form, the eSIM is lent by the mobile virtual network operator to the subscriber to accept the consumer embedded eSIM provided to perform wireless communications by connecting to a wireless communication network provided by a selected mobile network operator or communication carrier during network switching; paras. [0027]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to identify a subscriber using a unique identification code, e.g. ISMI, for authentication purposes when the subscriber switches to another network.
Regarding claim 10, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method of claim 1, wherein Brown and Tilanus do not disclose the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses a physical subscriber identity module card for the target mobile network operator. In the same field of endeavor, Kojima disclose the SIM may be a physical SIM card lent or provided by the mobile virtual network operator to the subscriber to be inserted in a slot of the mobile device to connect to a wireless communication network during network switching from one mobile network operator or communication carrier to another based on the selected mobile network operator or selected communication carrier that show an improved communication quality, e.g. data communication speed, packet error rate, disconnection frequency, time to connect, and signal response time; paras. [0027]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to identify a subscriber using a unique identification code, e.g. ISMI, for authentication and security purposes when the subscriber switches to another network with the improved communication service.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2021/0,297,941) in view of Tilanus et al (WO 9,901,975) in view of Kojima et al (US 2021/0,195,392) further in view of Horn et al (US 2009/0,191,857; hereinafter Horn).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 1 and 11 respectively, initiating proactively, by the mobile virtual network operator in response to detecting that the improvement in mobile telecommunication service would result from the mobile virtual network operator performing the network switch, the network switch comprises the mobile virtual network operator performing the network switch in a manner that is invisible to the client (performing the network switch seamlessly without any service interruption known or visible to the user and the user remain permanently and continuously reachable during the telephone number portability procedure; Brown, paras. [0075]-[0076], [0096], [0103]; Figs. 6-8; Tilanus, abstract). Brown and Tilanus do not disclose the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses an electronic subscriber identity module for the target mobile network operator. In the same field of endeavor, Kojima disclose the network switch to the target mobile network operator uses an electronic SIM in software form, the electronic SIM is configured to perform wireless communications by connecting to a wireless communication network provided by a selected mobile network operator or communication carrier showing improved communication quality of service during network switching; paras. [0027]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to identify a subscriber using a unique identification code, e.g. ISMI, for authentication purposes when the subscriber switches to another network. Brown, Tilanus, and Kojima do not specifically disclose a machine to machine embedded subscriber identity module. In related art, Horn disclose a machine to machine embedded subscriber identity module (¶ [0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to securely and remotely updating an eSIM with authentication and key agreement parameters and move the subscription of an M2M terminal from one operator to another, without causing the costs involved with a manual update (Horn, ¶ [0036]).
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 2021/0,297,941; hereinafter Brown) in view of Tilanus et al (WO 9,901,975; hereinafter Tilanus) further in view of Ohno (US 2024/0,040,497).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 3 and 13 respectively, wherein detecting that the target mobile network operator would provide the higher score comprises determining that the target mobile network operator would satisfy a service level agreement at a lower cost to the mobile virtual network operator than the source mobile network operator would (the MNO-selection rules comprise rules for selecting a MNO that do not relate to network characteristics, instead, e.g., the MNO selection rules relate to agreements between MNOs that are available to act as improved MNOs; Brown, para. [0076]). Brown and Tilanus do not disclose determining the target mobile target network operator would satisfy the agreement at a lower cost. In the same field of endeavor, Ohno disclose determining the target mobile target network operator has a lower cost (para. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to select an optimum mobile network operator in consideration of the cheapest cost of the mobile network operator (Ohno; paras. [0005], [0071]).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method and system of claim 3 and 13 respectively, wherein detecting that the target mobile network operator would provide the higher score comprises determining that the target mobile network operator would satisfy a service level agreement at a lower cost to the client than the source mobile network operator would (the MNO selection rules comprise rules for selecting a MNO that do not relate to network characteristics, instead, e.g., the MNO selection rules relate to agreements between MNOs that are available to act as improved MNOs; Brown, para. [0076]). Brown and Tilanus do not disclose determining the target mobile target network operator would satisfy the agreement at a lower cost. In the same field of endeavor, Ohno disclose determining the target mobile target network operator has a lower cost (para. [0072]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to select an optimum mobile network operator in consideration of the cheapest communication cost to the user of the mobile device (Ohno; paras. [0005], [0071]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
Regarding claim 2, Brown and Tilanus disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the mobile virtual network operator is configured according to a master network services agreement with the source mobile network operator such that the mobile virtual network operator serves as a unified interface for the client while nevertheless providing the client with access to the source network infrastructure of the source mobile network operator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Altera et al (US 2021/0,021,704) disclose a method for managing software telephones and telephone services, such as customer service support for multiple clients, involves receiving firm order commit date for indicating time to begin porting service for client from carrier.
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 LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Wesley Kim, can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights