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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 12 & 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engan et al. (US 2016/0105420 A1) in view of Jain et al (US 2021/0144624 A1).
Regarding 1, 12 & 17, Engan discloses the system, method and computer readable medium for provisioning access to a restricted telecommunication service, the system comprising: a plurality of networked telecommunication computer processing components;
a networked data repository (see database [0034]); and
one or more non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that (see [0043], “computer-readable storage media”), when executed by the plurality of networked telecommunication computer processing components, cause the plurality of networked telecommunication computer processing components to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at a restricted access priority module (see access module, fig. 2), an indication to initiate a logic flow;
querying a profile repository to retrieve a plurality of profile attributes associated with the user (see data store 218, user profiles, 220 in fig. 2), the plurality of profile attributes comprising an active status (see [0048], “[0048] The access module 212 may process access requests from service providers 112 or applications on the user devices 102-106 and may grant or deny such requests. In some embodiments, the access module 212 may deny access requests based at least on the corresponding user profile. For example, the access module 212 may deny access requests if the user has not accepted “terms of service.”) and
based on the plurality of profile attributes, causing a restricted access attribute to be stored in the networked data repository, the restricted access attribute indicating the user’s authorization to utilize the restricted telecommunication service (see deny access [0082]).
Engan does not specifically disclose however Jain discloses and a billing code associated with an account of the user (subscription zone code, table 16);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan with that of Jain. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 2-5,6,7-10, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engan et al. (US 2016/0105420 A1) in view of Jain et al (US 2021/0144624 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 2024/0114362 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Engan and Jain disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the restricted telecommunication service is wireless priority service (WPS) (see wireless priority service, [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan/Jain with that of Wang. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 6, Engan and Jain disclose the system of claim 5,
Wang better discloses wherein the operations further comprise logging the storage of the restricted access attribute in a key performance indicator (KPI) counter (see KPI [0064]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan/Jain with that of Wang. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 8, Engan and Jain disclose the system of claim 7, wherein the operations further comprise logging the storage of the restricted access attribute in a key performance indicator (KPI) counter (see KPI, [0064]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan/Jain with that of Wang. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 3, Engan in view of Jain discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the indication to initiate the logic flow comprises a change to one or more of the billing code associated with the account of the user, a roaming subscription information attribute, and an access restriction (see roaming restricted, jain table 16);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan with that of Jain. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 4, Engan in view of Jain discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the restricted access attribute indicates the user is not authorized to access the restricted telecommunication service based on the active status indicating a user identifier associated with the user is not active (did not accept “terms of service” therefore obviously not active, [0048]).
Regarding 5, Engan in view of Jain discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the user identifier is a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) (see MSISDN, [0014]).
Regarding 7, Engan in view of Jain discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the restricted access attribute indicates the user is not authorized to access the restricted telecommunication service based on the billing code associated with the account of the user not being associated with an entity or organization that is authorized to use the restricted telecommunication service (see JAIn table 16, note restriction codes, subscription related);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan with that of Jain. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 13 & 18, Engan in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the restricted access attribute indicates the user is not authorized to access the wireless priority service based on the active status indicating a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) associated with the user is not active ( see MSISDN [0183]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan with that of Jain. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 14 & 19, Engan in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the restricted access attribute indicates the user is not authorized to access the wireless priority service based on the billing code associated with the account of the user not being associated with an entity or organization that is authorized to use the wireless priority service (see wireless priority service, [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan/Jain with that of Wang. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 15 & 20, Engan in view of Jain discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the restricted access attribute indicates the user is authorized to access the wireless priority service based on the billing code associated with the account of the user being associated with an entity or organization that is authorized to use the wireless priority service and based on the active status indicating that a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) associated with the user is active (see wireless priority service, [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan/Jain with that of Wang. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 9, Engan in view of Jain discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the restricted access attribute indicates the user is authorized to access the restricted telecommunication service based on the billing code associated with the account of the user being associated with an entity or organization that is authorized to use the restricted telecommunication service (see various subscription related restrictions and codes in table 16) and based on the active status indication a user identifier associated with the user is active, the user identifier comprising a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) (see MSISDN [0183]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan with that of Jain. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding 10 & 16, Engan in view of Jain discloses the system of claim 7 and 15, wherein the operations further comprise provisioning a roaming subscriber identifier (RSI) with the user’s profile based on the restricted access attribute indicating the user is authorized to access the restricted telecommunication service (see table 14, “[Roaming-Information] [ IMEI-Change ] [Reachability-Information]”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Engan with that of Jain. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights