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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the applicants' communication filed on August 22, 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on August 22, 2024 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1, 5, 11, 15, and 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/812,900 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the broadened claims of the present application are anticipated by the more narrow claims elements of the U.S. Patent/co-pending application. Claim(s) 1, 11, and 19 is/are anticipated by claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of the U.S. Patent/co-pending application. Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are anticipated by claim(s) 1 of the U.S. Patent/co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub No.: US 2017/0223598 A1 (herein “Ho”).
Claims 1, 11, and 19
Consider claim 1, Ho teaches a method comprising:
detecting, by a mobile virtual network operator consuming a first amount of resources to serve a client of the mobile virtual network operator according to a current configuration, a proportion of time that the client connects to a first network infrastructure operated by a first mobile network operator in at least one location that is covered by a second network infrastructure operated by a second mobile network operator (see Ho Fig. 3, [0015], [0025] note determining that a user of an MVNO has detected a condition indicative of a current or predicted level of cellular activity via the first cellular connection below an inactivity threshold. Additionally, Ho [0022] explains predicted periods of inactivity and/or times of the day when the condition can be determined);
simulating, by the mobile virtual network operator, that the mobile virtual network operator performed a network switch to switch a home network of the client from the first network infrastructure operated by the first mobile network operator to the second network infrastructure operated by the second mobile network operator (see Ho Fig. 3, [0015], [0025] note determining that the difference between the current cellular connection and the new cellular connection is greater than a minimum strength improvement threshold);
calculating, by the mobile virtual network operator based on the simulating, a second amount of resources that would be consumed by the mobile virtual network operator to serve the client after performing the network switch at least in part by modifying a consumption rate for resource consumption on the second network infrastructure based on the proportion of time that the client connects to the first network infrastructure in the at least one location that is covered by the second network infrastructure (see Ho Fig. 3, [0015], [0023], [0025] note determining that the difference between the current cellular connection and the new cellular connection is greater than a minimum strength improvement threshold, among other conditions such as data pricing differences between the cellular carriers);
detecting, by the mobile virtual network operator, that the second amount of resources that was calculated based on the simulating is less than the first amount of resources based on the current configuration (see Ho Fig. 3, [0015], [0025] note determining that the difference between the current cellular connection and the new cellular connection is greater than a minimum strength improvement threshold); and
performing, by the mobile virtual network operator in response to detecting that the second amount of resources that was calculated based on the simulating is less than the first amount of resources based on the current configuration, the network switch (see Ho Fig. 3, [0015], [0025] note terminating the first connection and establishing the second connection with the second cellular carrier of the MVNO);
wherein: both the first mobile network operator and the second mobile network operator agreed to provide cell service to clients of the mobile virtual network operator through the first network infrastructure and the second network infrastructure, respectively, prior to the network switch (see Ho [0014], [0017] note MNO 120a and 120b both associated with MVNO 124).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2, 12, and 20
Consider claim 1, Ho teaches wherein the mobile virtual network operator also functions as the first mobile network operator (see Ho [0017] note each cellular carrier can be associated with an MVNO).
Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 2.
Claims 3 and 13
Consider claim 3, Ho teaches wherein the mobile virtual network operator also functions as the second mobile network operator (see Ho [0017] note each cellular carrier can be associated with an MVNO).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 23.
Claims 4 and 14
Consider claim 4, Ho teaches wherein the first mobile network operator and the second mobile network operator comprise third-party mobile network operators that are distinct from the mobile virtual network operator (see Ho [0017] note the MVNO purchase services from the cellular carriers 120).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15
Consider claim 5, Ho teaches further comprising:
receiving, by the mobile virtual network operator from the first mobile network operator a call detail record for the client that fails to specify a geolocation of the client (see Ho [0027] the particular location of the user can not be determined); and
geolocating, by the mobile virtual network operator, the client at least in part by matching a cell identifier from the call detail record that identifies a cell of a cell tower of the first mobile network operator that connected to the client with a geolocation for the cell identifier that is specified in a third-party database of cell identifier geolocations despite the call detail record for the client failing to specify the geolocation of the client (see Ho [0027] note determining generalized location information for the user when the user’s particular location can not be determined) .
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16
Consider claim 6, Ho teaches wherein the third-party database is open source (see Ho [0023], [0027] note sent content or communications from server 128).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17
Consider claim 7, Ho teaches further comprising verifying, prior to the network switch, that the client is not excluded as a candidate from the network switch, by performing a set of verification tests (see Ho [0020] establishing the connection based on location as the mobile computing device conditions change).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 7.
Claims 8 and 18
Consider claim 8, Ho teaches wherein the set of verification tests comprises:
verifying whether the client is geolocatable (see Ho [0020] establishing the connection based on location as the mobile computing device conditions change. Additionally Ho [0027] further explains the user controlling whether the location information is collected/collectable);
verifying whether a client device of the client is compatible with the second mobile network operator; or
verifying that a tenure of the client is longer than a threshold tenure.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 8.
Claim 9
Consider claim 9, Ho teaches wherein the set of verification tests comprises: verifying that an amount of data usage of the client is greater than a threshold amount; verifying that an amount of savings is greater than a threshold savings; or verifying that the client is primarily located at an area of interest where the second mobile network operator has launched (see Ho [0020] note the mobile computing device 104 moving into a location serviced by the second cellular carrier).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS C HAMMONDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISON T. SLATER can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
/MARCUS HAMMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights