CTNF 18/766,906 CTNF 80416 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/559,116 , filed on September 18, 2017 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 09, 2024 and April 16, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-37 AIA The drawings were received on July 09, 2024 . These drawings are acceptable . Double Patenting 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-31 AIA Claim s 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim s 1-12 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,863,037 . This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Regarding claim 1 , claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,037 recites a charging management apparatus (col. 17, line 55) comprising: a memory storing instructions (col. 17, line 56) ; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (col. 17, line 57) to: specify first user identification information comprising first charging information for connecting to a communication network via a first network operator (col. 17, lines 58-60) ; specify second user identification information comprising second charging information for connecting to the communication network via a second network operator (col. 17, lines 61-64) ; and based on the specified first user identification information and the specified second user identification information, unify the first charging information and the second charging information to an account for a service of a virtual network operator (col. 17, line 65 – col. 18, line 2) . Claims 2-6 correspond to claims 2-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,037. Regarding claim 7 , claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,037 recites charging management method comprising (col. 18, line 38) : specifying first user identification information comprising first charging information for connecting to a communication network via a first network operator (col. 18, lines 39-41) ; specifying second user identification information comprising second charging information for connecting to the communication network via a second network operator (col. 18, lines 42-45) ; and based on the specified first user identification information and the specified second user identification information, unifying the first charging information and the second charging information to an account for a service of a virtual network operator (col. 18, lines 46-50) . Claims 8-12 correspond to claims 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,037. 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,202 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: Regarding claim 1 , claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,202 recites a charging management apparatus (col. 18, lines 29-35) comprising: a memory storing instructions (col. 18, line 36) ; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (col. 18, line 37) to: specify first user identification information comprising first charging information for connecting to a communication network via a first network operator (col. 18, lines 38-40) ; specify second user identification information comprising second charging information for connecting to the communication network via a second network operator (col. 18, lines 38-40) ; and based on the specified first user identification information and the specified second user identification information, unify the first charging information and the second charging information to an account for a service of a virtual network operator (col. 18, lines 48-54) . Claim 2 corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,202. Claim 3 corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,069,202. Claims 4-6 , even though U.S. Patent No. 12,069,202 does not expressly recite these claims features; however, one of ordinary skilled in the art would easily modify and include these claim features. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to allow the service provider to get paid for service provided and enable the user to top-off the account to prevent the service being interrupted. Claims 7-12 recite a different statutory class and include similar features to those of recited within claims 1-6. Therefore, the Examiner rejects these claims at least for the same reasons discussed above . 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,560,582 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: Regarding claim 1 , claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,560,582 recites a charging management apparatus (col. 17, line 66 – col. 18, line 4) comprising: a memory storing instructions (col. 18, line 5) ; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (col. 18, line 6) to: specify first user identification information comprising first charging information for connecting to a communication network via a first network operator (col. 1, lines 7-11) ; specify second user identification information comprising second charging information for connecting to the communication network via a second network operator (col. 18, lines 12-16) ; and based on the specified first user identification information and the specified second user identification information, unify the first charging information and the second charging information to an account for a service of a virtual network operator (col. 18, lines 17-22) . Claims 2 and 5 , even though U.S. Patent No. 10,560,582 does not expressly recite these claims features; however, one of ordinary skilled in the art would easily modify and include these claim features. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to provide a central computing equipment and storage systems. Claim 3 corresponds to claim 1 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,560,582. Claims 4 and 6 correspond to claims 4-5 of the U.S. Patent No. 10,560,582. Claims 7-12 recite a different statutory class and include similar features to those of recited within claims 1-6. Therefore, the Examiner rejects these claims at least for the same reasons discussed above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bellofatto et al. (hereinafter “Bellofatto”, US 2012/0028601) as cited in IDS dated July 9, 2024 . Regarding claims 1 and 7 , Bellofatto discloses a charging management apparatus, and a charging management method comprising: a memory storing instructions (i.e., a memory as described in paragraph 0051, and as shown in Figs. 3 & 5) ; and a processor configured to execute the instructions (i.e., a processor as described in paragraphs 0037-0038, and as shown in Figs. 3 & 5) to: specify first user identification information comprising first charging information for connecting to a communication network via a first network operator (i.e., MVNO 120 determines usage data for each MVNO client 150 as described in paragraph 0026) ; specify second user identification information comprising second charging information for connecting to the communication network via a second network operator (i.e., MVNO 120 determines usage including the MVNO client’s 150 usage of the MVNO’s 120 services and usage of the MHON 140 as described in paragraph 0026) ; and based on the specified first user identification information and the specified second user identification information, unify the first charging information and the second charging information to an account for a service of a virtual network operator (i.e., MVNO 120 determines usage including the MVNO client’s 150 usage of the MVNO’s 120 services and usage of the MHON 140 as described in paragraphs 0022-0028) . Regarding claims 2 and 8 , Bellofatto discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Bellofatto also discloses wherein the service is provided by the virtual network operator, via a data center operated by the virtual network operator (i.e., see Figs. 1 & 3, and its descriptions) . Regarding claims 3 and 9 , Bellofatto discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Bellofatto also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: charge for the service to the account (i.e., MVNO 120 determines usage including the MVNO client’s 150 usage of the MVNO’s 120 services and usage of the MHON 140 as described in paragraphs 0026-0028. Also, consolidating the charges as described in paragraphs 0020, 0034, and Abstract) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellofatto in view of Laden et al. (hereinafter “Laden”, US 2015/0148020) as cited in IDS dated July 9, 2024 . Regarding claims 4 and 10 , Bellofatto discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims. In a similar endeavor, Laden discloses a method and apparatus for self-activating a mobile device. Landen also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a charging method including at least one of prepayment or payment by a credit card, in correspondence with the first user identification information or the second user identification information (i.e., prepaid server to manage the customer’s prepaid account as described in paragraph 0058) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the carriers to collect fees for the provided services. Regarding claims 6 and 12 , Bellofatto discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims. In a similar endeavor, Laden discloses a method and apparatus for self-activating a mobile device. Landen also discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: transmit to the account a notification when a prepaid balance becomes equal to or less than a predetermined value or runs out (i.e., notification messages is sent to customer about remaining balance that falls below a threshold as described in paragraph 0058) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to allow the users to get services without interruption . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellofatto in view of Miqueo (US 2016/0019527) . Regarding claims 5 and 11 , Bellofatto discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Bellofatto also discloses wherein the first user identification information is for telecom carrier service provided by at least one of the first network operator or the second network operator (i.e., client ID as described in paragraph 0031) , but does not expressly disclose wherein the second user identification information is for a cloud service. In a similar endeavor, Miqueo discloses device and process for purchasing electronic content using multimedia messaging service messaging. Miqueo also discloses wherein the second user identification information is for a cloud service (i.e., identifier of the user of the wireless device using serviced provided by MVNO cloud as described in paragraphs 0034, 0042-0045 and 0062) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention. The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the user to purchase electronic content from content providers. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached on (571)270-5371. 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. /Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/766,906 Page 2 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/766,906 Page 3 Art Unit: 2644 Application/Control Number: 18/766,906 Page 4 Art Unit: 2644
Prosecution Insights