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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 is merely a repeat of claim 3 and claim 14 is merely a repeat of claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 11-16 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 claims a method (see claim 1), a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one physical computing processor, cause a computing device to perform operations (see claim 11), and a system (see claim 20) comprising:
at least one physical computing processor of a computing device (see claim 20); 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 (see claim 20) comprising:
receiving, by a mobile virtual network operator from a client of the mobile virtual network operator, a request to perform a task relating to a telecommunication account of the client with the mobile virtual network operator (see claims 1, 11 and 20);
forwarding, by the mobile virtual network operator, the request to perform the task to a mobile virtual network enabler (see claims 1, 11 and 20);
transforming, by the mobile virtual network operator, an original response to the request from the mobile virtual network enabler after the mobile virtual network enabler completes the task into a transformed response that is agnostic between mobile virtual network enablers (see claims 1, 6, 11, 16 and 20); and
reporting, by the mobile virtual network operator to the client, the transformed response (see claims 1, 11 and 20).
However, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 has not claimed “caching, by the network operator after the transforming, the original response to the request for reference by a troubleshooting component”.
Yokota teaches caching, by a device, after a transforming, an original for reference by a troubleshooting component (storing an original content/data, after a transformation of the original data/content, for troubleshooting when the needed, paragraphs [37-40, 49]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of caching, by a device, after a transforming, an original response by a troubleshooting component as taught by Yokota, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212, for a purpose of providing troubleshooting for the original response by storing the original response (see Yokota, paragraphs [37-40, 49]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 further claims mapping, by the mobile virtual network operator, a first client identifier that the mobile virtual network enabler assigned to the telecommunication account onto a second client identifier that the mobile virtual network operator assigned to the telecommunication account and that is distinct from the first client identifier (see claims 7 and 17).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 13 and 14, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 further claims wherein transforming, by the mobile virtual network operator, the original response to the request from the mobile virtual network enabler after the mobile virtual network enabler completes the task into the transformed response that is agnostic between mobile virtual network enablers comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response (see claims 8 and 18).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 further claims wherein: the mobile virtual network operator maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client (see claims 9 and 19); or
the mobile virtual network operator maintains the second client identifier as secret from the mobile virtual network enabler (see claims 9 and 19).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 further claims wherein: the task relating to the telecommunication account of the client comprises a resource exchange task (see claim 10); or
the task relating to the telecommunication account of the client comprises a line provisioning task (see claim 10).
Claims 7 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0051161 A1 to Dylla.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client”.
Dylla teaches transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client (server obfuscates an identity of a service provider from a respective of a client, thus, transforming a response that is agnostic between the service providers, paragraphs [39-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client as taught by Dylla, with the claims of the copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of hiding identity from the client (see Dylla, paragraphs [39-40]).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,178,215 B1 to Kaukl et al. (hereafter refers as Kaukl).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota does not explicitly teach transforming the original response comprises “stripping at least one value from the original response”.
Kaukl teaches transforming the original response comprises stripping at least one value from the original response (transforming the original response by remove the canonical identifier from the original response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming the original response comprises stripping at least one value from the original response as taught by Kaukl, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of increase security by prevent the first client identifier being shared with the client, which is used by the network providers (see Kaukl, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “enriching the original response with at least one value”.
Kaukl teaches transforming an original response to the request into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers comprises enriching the original response with at least one value (transforming the original response into a transformed response that is agnostic between servicer by adding identifier to the original response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response to the request into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers comprises enriching the original response with at least one value as taught by Kaukl, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of allowing the response to be compatible with the format of the client by adding the identifier that is recognized to the client (see Kaukl, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2007/0201361 A1 to Kumar et al. (hereafter refers as Kumar).
Regarding claim 10, the copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “wherein: the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer”.
Kumar further teaches the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer (wherein the MVNO communicates with request to the SSVO, and the SSVO includes multiple layers for perform different functions, wherein the layers are communicated with each other, paragraphs [142, 294, 301, 322, 324] and Fig. 52, 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer as taught by Kumar, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,212 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of separating the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer, thus improving efficiency in performing multiple functions by including multiple separated layers (see Kumar, paragraphs [142, 294, 301, 322, 324] and Fig. 52, 55).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-2, 6, 11-12, 16 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 claims a method (see claim 1), a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one physical computing processor, cause a computing device to perform operations (see claim 11), and a system (see claim 20) comprising:
at least one physical computing processor of a computing device (see claim 20); 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 (see claim 20) comprising:
receiving, by a mobile virtual network operator from a client of the mobile virtual network operator, a request to perform a task relating to a telecommunication account of the client with the mobile virtual network operator (see claims 1, 11 and 20);
forwarding, by the mobile virtual network operator, the request to perform the task to a mobile virtual network enabler (see claims 1, 11 and 20);
transforming, by the mobile virtual network operator, an original response to the request from the mobile virtual network enabler after the mobile virtual network enabler completes the task into a transformed response that is agnostic between mobile virtual network enablers (see claims 1, 9, 11, 19 and 20); and
reporting, by the mobile virtual network operator to the client, the transformed response (see claims 1, 11 and 20).
However, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 has not claimed “caching, by the network operator after the transforming, the original response to the request for reference by a troubleshooting component”.
Yokota teaches caching, by a device, after a transforming, an original for reference by a troubleshooting component (storing an original content/data, after a transformation of the original data/content, for troubleshooting when the needed, paragraphs [37-40, 49]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of caching, by a device, after a transforming, an original response by a troubleshooting component as taught by Yokota, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233, for a purpose of provide troubleshooting for the original response by storing the original response (see Yokota, paragraphs [37-40, 49]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 further claims mapping, by the mobile virtual network operator, a first client identifier that the mobile virtual network enabler assigned to the telecommunication account onto a second client identifier that the mobile virtual network operator assigned to the telecommunication account and that is distinct from the first client identifier (see claim 10).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 further claims wherein: the task relating to the telecommunication account of the client comprises a resource exchange task (see claim 2); or
the task relating to the telecommunication account of the client comprises a line provisioning task (see claim 2).
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 13-15 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,178,215 B1 to Kaukl et al. (hereafter refers as Kaukl).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 13 and 14, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “wherein transforming, by the mobile virtual network operator, the original response to the request from the mobile virtual network enabler after the mobile virtual network enabler completes the task into the transformed response that is agnostic between mobile virtual network enablers comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response”.
Kaukl teaches transforming an original response to a request into a transformed response comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response (transforming an original response into a transformed response by transforming an canonical identifier, i.e. an identifier that only used by the provider networks, into a client identifier within the transformed response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response to a request into a transformed response comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response as taught by Kaukl, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of provide transparent support for the first client identifier by allowing the first client identifier to be translated to second client identifier which is known to the network operator (see Kaukl, col. 2, lines 15-50).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client”.
Kaukl teaches maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client (an canonical identifier is hidden from a client, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client as taught by Kaukl, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of increase security by prevent the first client identifier being shared with the client, which is used by the network providers (see Kaukl, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota does not explicitly teach transforming the original response comprises “stripping at least one value from the original response”.
Kaukl teaches transforming the original response comprises stripping at least one value from the original response (transforming the original response by remove the canonical identifier from the original response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming the original response comprises stripping at least one value from the original response as taught by Kaukl, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of increase security by prevent the first client identifier being shared with the client, which is used by the network providers (see Kaukl, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “enriching the original response with at least one value”.
Kaukl teaches transforming an original response to the request into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers comprises enriching the original response with at least one value (transforming the original response into a transformed response that is agnostic between servicer by adding identifier to the original response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response to the request into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers comprises enriching the original response with at least one value as taught by Kaukl, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of allowing the response to be compatible with the format of the client by adding the identifier that is recognized to the client (see Kaukl, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Claims 7 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0051161 A1 to Dylla.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client”.
Dylla teaches transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client (server obfuscates an identity of a service provider from a respective of a client, thus, transforming a response that is agnostic between the service providers, paragraphs [39-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client as taught by Dylla, with the claims of the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of hiding identity from the client (see Dylla, paragraphs [39-40]).
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2007/0201361 A1 to Kumar et al. (hereafter refers as Kumar).
Regarding claim 10, the copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota does not explicitly claim “wherein: the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer”.
Kumar further teaches the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer (wherein the MVNO communicates with request to the SSVO, and the SSVO includes multiple layers for perform different functions, wherein the layers are communicated with each other, paragraphs [142, 294, 301, 322, 324] and Fig. 52, 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer as taught by Kumar, with the claims of copending Application No. 18/595,233 in view of Yokota, for a purpose of separating the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer, thus improving efficiency in performing multiple functions by including multiple separated layers (see Kumar, paragraphs [142, 294, 301, 322, 324] and Fig. 52, 55).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10-12, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0201361 A1 to Kumar et al. (hereafter refers as Kumar) in view of US 2022/0263825 A1 to Gregus et al. (hereafter refers as Gregus) and further in view of US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, Kumar teaches a method (a method for processing request from a client/subscriber, Fig. 55 and paragraphs [317-319, 321-322]), a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one physical computing processor, cause a computing device to perform operations (a memory for storing instructions therein, which when executed by a processor cause a device to perform the method, paragraphs [303, 309, 325] and Fig. 52), and a system (see Fig. 52, 55) comprising:
at least one physical computing processor of a computing device (a CPU, Fig. 52 and paragraph [307]); 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 memory for storing instructions therein, which when executed by a processor cause a device to perform the method, paragraphs [303, 309, 325] and Fig. 52) comprising:
receiving, by a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO, Fig. 55) from a client of the mobile virtual network operator, a request (the MVNO receives from a client/subscriber of the MVNO, a request, paragraph [322]) to perform a task relating to a telecommunication account of the client with the mobile virtual network operator (the request is a service request related to a telecommunication account of the client/subscriber within the MVNO, paragraphs [289, 293-294, 296, 297, 302-303, 314-316, 318, 322, Fig. 54-55);
forwarding, by the mobile virtual network operator, the request to perform the task to a mobile virtual network enabler (the MVNO forwards the request to one of the SSVO to perform the request, paragraph [322], wherein the SSVO is acts as a single unit to perform the functions so MVNO/virtual operator, paragraphs [292, 294-303, 312, 314] and Fig. 52, 53), an original response to the request from the mobile virtual network enabler after the mobile virtual network enabler completes the task (an response/result is received from a selected SSVO after the SSVO has completed/processed request, paragraphs [321-322]); and
reporting, by the mobile virtual network operator to the client, a response (the MVNO reports a result to the client/subscriber, paragraph [322]).
However, Kumar does not explicitly teach “transforming an original response to the request into a transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers”.
Gregus teaches a method (a method for processing request from a client, Fig. 3), a non-transitory computer-readable medium that has instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one physical computing processor, cause a computing device to perform operations (a memory for storing instructions therein, which when executed by a processor cause a device to perform the method, paragraphs [34-37] and Fig. 5), and a system comprising:
at least one physical computing processor of a computing device (a CPU/processing unit, Fig. 5 and paragraphs [33-34, 37]); 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 memory for storing instructions therein, which when executed by a processor cause a device to perform the method, paragraphs [33-37] and Fig. 5) comprising:
receiving, by a network operator from a client of the network operator, a request (a proxy of a network receives from a client of the proxy, a request Fig. 3-4 and paragraphs [22-23]) to perform a task relating to a telecommunication account of the client with the network operator (wherein the request for authorizing related to telecommunication account of the UE with the proxy, paragraphs [13-15, 20, 23-24]);
forwarding, by the network operator, the request to perform the task to a network enabler (the proxy forwards the request to perform the task to an authorization cell to process the request, paragraphs [25, 28-30] and Fig. 3, steps 314-320);
transforming, by the network operator, an original response to the request from the network enabler after the network enabler completes the task into a transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers (the proxy transforms an original response after the authorization cell completed the task, into a transformed response that is different and unknown to the authorization cells, i.e. transform a form that is fit the client and not understanded by the authorization cells, paragraphs [12-13, 30-31]); and
reporting, by the network operator to the client, the transformed response (the proxy transmits the transformed/modified response to the client, paragraph [32]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming, by the network operator, an original response to the request from the network enabler after the network enabler completes the task into a transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers as taught by Gregus, with the teachings of mobile virtual network operator and mobile virtual network enabler as taught by Kumar, for a purpose of reducing system-wide failure when there is an error in format change in the mobile virtual network enablers and the clients, by transform the responses prior to forward to the client(s), thus further allowing the mobile virtual network enablers and the clients to update their respective format when needed without effecting communication between the mobile virtual network enablers and the clients (see Gregus, paragraphs [12-14]).
However, the combination of Kumar and Gregus does not explicitly teach “caching, by the network operator after the transforming, the original response to the request for reference by a troubleshooting component”.
Yokota teaches caching, by a device, after a transforming, an original for reference by a troubleshooting component (storing an original content/data, after a transformation of the original data/content, for troubleshooting when the needed, paragraphs [37-40, 49]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of caching, by a device, after a transforming, an original response by a troubleshooting component as taught by Yokota, with the teachings of combination of Kumar and Gregus, for a purpose of provide troubleshooting for the original response by storing the original response (see Yokota, paragraphs [37-40, 49]).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kumar further teaches mapping, by the mobile virtual network operator, a first client identifier that the mobile virtual network enabler assigned to the telecommunication account onto a second client identifier that the mobile virtual network operator assigned to the telecommunication account and that is distinct from the first client identifier (mapping identifier of the subscriber onto identifier assigned by SSVO/serving network, see Kumar, paragraphs [106, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 132, 175, 182]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kumar further teaches wherein: the task relating to the telecommunication account of the client comprises a resource exchange task (wherein the request is for communication/messaging, see Kumar, paragraphs [170, 193, 213, 300]); or
the task relating to the telecommunication account of the client comprises a line provisioning task (wherein the request is for network service, see Kumar, paragraphs [139, 163, 167, 213, 300, 314]).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar further teaches the mobile virtual network operator maintains separation between a mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer and a mobile virtual network enabler integration layer; and the mobile virtual network operator is configured such that the mobile virtual network enabler orchestration layer only communicates with the mobile virtual network enabler through the mobile virtual network enabler integration layer (wherein the MVNO communicates with request to the SSVO, and the SSVO includes multiple layers for perform different functions, wherein the layers are communicated with each other, paragraphs [142, 294, 301, 322, 324] and Fig. 52, 55).
Claims 3-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0201361 A1 to Kumar et al. (hereafter refers as Kumar) in view of US 2022/0263825 A1 to Gregus et al. (hereafter refers as Gregus) and US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US Patent No. 11,178,215 B1 to Kaukl et al. (hereafter refers as Kaukl).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 13 and 14, the combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota does not explicitly teach “wherein transforming, by the mobile virtual network operator, the original response to the request from the mobile virtual network enabler after the mobile virtual network enabler completes the task into the transformed response that is agnostic between mobile virtual network enablers comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response”.
Kaukl teaches transforming an original response to a request into a transformed response comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response (transforming an original response into a transformed response by transforming an canonical identifier, i.e. an identifier that only used by the provider networks, into a client identifier within the transformed response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response to a request into a transformed response comprises transforming the first client identifier into the second client identifier within the transformed response as taught by Kaukl, with the teachings of combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota, for a purpose of provide transparent support for the first client identifier by allowing the first client identifier to be translated to second client identifier which is known to the network operator (see Kaukl, col. 2, lines 15-50).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota does not explicitly teach “maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client”.
Kaukl teaches maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client (an canonical identifier is hidden from a client, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of maintains the first client identifier as secret from the client as taught by Kaukl, with the teachings of combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota, for a purpose of increase security by prevent the first client identifier being shared with the client, which is used by the network providers (see Kaukl, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota does not explicitly teach transforming the original response comprises “stripping at least one value from the original response”.
Kaukl teaches transforming the original response comprises stripping at least one value from the original response (transforming the original response by remove the canonical identifier from the original response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming the original response comprises stripping at least one value from the original response as taught by Kaukl, with the teachings of combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota, for a purpose of increase security by prevent the first client identifier being shared with the client, which is used by the network providers (see Kaukl, col. 5, lines 30-35).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota does not explicitly teach “enriching the original response with at least one value”.
Kaukl teaches transforming an original response to the request into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers comprises enriching the original response with at least one value (transforming the original response into a transformed response that is agnostic between servicer by adding identifier to the original response, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response to the request into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers comprises enriching the original response with at least one value as taught by Kaukl, with the teachings of combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota, for a purpose of allowing the response to be compatible with the format of the client by adding the identifier that is recognized to the client (see Kaukl, col. 3, lines 5-30, col. 10, lines 5-15).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2007/0201361 A1 to Kumar et al. (hereafter refers as Kumar) in view of US 2022/0263825 A1 to Gregus et al. (hereafter refers as Gregus) and US 2008/0260161 A1 to Yokota et al. (hereafter refers as Yokota) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0051161 A1 to Dylla.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota does not explicitly teach “transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client”.
Dylla teaches transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client (server obfuscates an identity of a service provider from a respective of a client, thus, transforming a response that is agnostic between the service providers, paragraphs [39-40]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of transforming an original response from a network enabler after into the transformed response that is agnostic between network enablers obfuscates an identity of the network enabler from a perspective of a client as taught by Dylla, with the teachings of combination of Kumar, Gregus and Yokota, for a purpose of hiding identity from the client (see Dylla, paragraphs [39-40]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0421469 A1 discloses caching responses for troubleshooting (see paragraphs [28, 54]).
US 2009/0017809 A1 discloses MVNE receives request and identifying branded system for forwarding request (Fig. 1-4 and paragraphs [68-72]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Ian N. Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights