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 .
This Office Action is in response to initial filing on 10/11/2024.
Claim 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/11/2024. These drawings are 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 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11303760. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant claim 1 is broader in scope and thus encompasses the subject of conflicting claim 1. Instant claim 1 does not require the “wherein the target destination comprises a separate location in the first target billing system or the second target billing system, the separate location being associated with the third service provider and accessible to the third service provider only.” of conflicting claim 1 and each of the other steps are more broadly written.
Regarding claim 1, the table below shows that claim 1 of the patent contains the elements of claim 1 of the instant application, and therefore, is an obvious variant thereof.
Instant Application 18/913936
Patent 11303760
1. A computer-implemented method to route call detail records (CDRs) to target billing systems to facilitate split billing, the method comprising: receiving a call detail record (CDR) that includes a device identifier and a subscriber identifier for a user subscriber, wherein a first activation record of a set of activation records identifies activation of the user subscriber at a first billing system using the subscriber identifier and a first device identifier, and wherein a second activation record of the set of activation records identifies activation of the subscriber at a second billing system using the subscriber identifier and a second device identifier; accessing a stored set of rules for routing of billing information associated with services provided via a network, wherein each rule in the stored set of rules specifies a billing system to receive usage data associated with data usage over the network; identifying an applicable rule in the stored set of rules to be applied to the CDR based on the subscriber identifier and the device identifier, wherein the applicable rule is associated with an activation record of the set of activation records, and wherein the activation record identifies activation of the user subscriber at a target billing system using the subscriber identifier and the device identifier; and transmitting the CDR to the target billing system corresponding to the activation record.
1. A computer-implemented method for billing in a wireless communication system, comprising: receiving a first call detail record (CDR) associated with a first wireless transmission of data provided by a first service provider; receiving a second call detail record (CDR) associated with a second wireless transmission of data provided by a second service provider, wherein the first and the second CDRs are associated with a same user, and wherein the first and second wireless transmissions of data are performed over the same cellular communications network; determining, based on the first CDR, a first target billing system associated with the first service provider; determining, based on the second CDR, a second target billing system associated with the second service provider; identifying, based on a billing rule associated with at least one of the first or the second service provider, a type of service associated with a third service provider; creating a third CDR for the third service provider that indicates data usage associated with the identified type of service; and transmitting the third CDR to a target destination associated with the third service provider, wherein the target destination comprises a separate location in the first target billing system or the second target billing system, the separate location being associated with the third service provider and accessible to the third service provider only.
Instant claim 2 and patent claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 3 and patent claim 1 correspond, but does not include the altered version of the first CDR.
Instant claim 4 and patent claim 4 correspond.
Instant claim 5 and patent claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 6 and patent claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 7 and patent claim 8 correspond.
Instant claim 8 only differs from conflicting claim 1 by reciting a different statutory class, however it is well understood in the art for a device to produce a method and vice versa. Therefore, given the method/CRM recited in instant claim 8, it is considered that it would have been obvious to produce the device of conflicting claim 1 in order to perform the method contained on the CRM.
Instant claim 9 and patent claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 10 and patent claim 1 correspond, but does not include the altered version of the first CDR.
Instant claim 11 and patent claim 4 correspond.
Instant claim 12 and patent claim 8 correspond.
Instant claim 13 and patent claim 6 correspond.
Instant claim 14 and patent claim 7 correspond.
Instant claim 15 only differs from conflicting claim 1 by reciting a different statutory class, however it is well understood in the art for a device to produce a method and vice versa. Therefore, given the method/CRM recited in instant claim 15, it is considered that it would have been obvious to produce the device of conflicting claim 1 in order to perform the method contained on the CRM.
Instant claim 16 and patent claim 1 correspond.
Instant claim 17 and patent claim 1 correspond, but does not include the altered version of the first CDR.
Instant claim 18 and patent claim 4 correspond.
Instant claim 19 and patent claim 5 correspond.
Instant claim 20 and patent claim 6 correspond.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 8-11 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sutaria (US 20150011184) in view of Cai (US 20120088469).
Regarding claim 1, Sutaria discloses a computer-implemented method for billing in a wireless communication system, comprising:
receiving a call detail record (CDR) (Fig. 1: event data 42 ) that includes a device identifier and a subscriber identifier for a user subscriber (Fig. 1: ISP 96; Figure 1, [0024] The management server 16 operates a software billing manager 26 that captures event data 42 used for operator billing. Fig. 5, [0069] the billing manager 26 separates all email events exchanged between device 90A and ISP 96 in email account 92B into report 106A in data 106. See [0032], [0048], and [0049] for further details re Event Data), wherein a first activation record of a set of activation records identifies activation of the user subscriber at a first billing system using the subscriber identifier and a first device identifier (Fig. 1: event data 42, and ISP 98; Fig. 1 and [0024] The management server 16 operates a software billing manager 26 that captures event data 42 used for operator billing. Fig. 5, [0069] The billing manger 26 can also separate all of the email events exchanged between both mobile devices 90A and 90B and ISP 98 for email account 92C into report 106B), and wherein a second activation record of the set of activation records identifies activation of the subscriber at a second billing system using the subscriber identifier and a second device identifier (Fig. 5, [0069] email events exchanged between device 90A and ISP 96 in email account 92B . . . email events exchanged between both mobile devices 90A . . . and ISP 98 for email account 92C into report 106B);
and wherein the activation record identifies activation of the user subscriber at a target billing system using the subscriber identifier and the device identifier (Fig. 1, [0029]: operator billing server [0088]: the type of billing model chosen by the operator and the chosen billing adapters; Fig. 5, [0073]: All of the different reports 106 in reporting database 28 can then be separately formatted and supplied to the different service providers. See also, Abstract, “the billing data to the network operator providing services to the mobile device”); and transmitting the CDR to the target billing system corresponding to the activation record (Fig. 1, [0018] The mobile network 14 includes a mobile device 21 that operates a device client 23 that communicates with an IP infrastructure through a wireless or landline mobile network operator; Fig. 1, [0029]: operator billing server [0088]: the type of billing model chosen by the operator and the chosen billing adapters; [0090] The format of billing records can be varied to satisfy mobile operator requirements. . . . Call Detail Record (CDR)); Fig. 1: [0032] the aggregated event data. This enables operators to have quick and easy access to service and usage data . . .; [0054] Some events when appropriate may also contain attributes such as file size, Internet Service Provider (ISP) and service type’ and Fig. 1: enterprise network 104. Fig. 5, [0069] the billing manger 26 can separate all of the events exchanged between mobile device 90A and enterprise network 104 into report 106C in data 106).
Sutaria does not expressly disclose accessing a stored set of rules for routing of billing information associated with services provided via a network, wherein each rule in the stored set of rules specifies a billing system to receive usage data associated with data usage over the network; identifying an applicable rule in the stored set of rules to be applied to the CDR based on the subscriber identifier and the device identifier, wherein the applicable rule is associated with an activation record of the set of activation records.
However, Cai discloses identifying, based on a billing rule (See Cai [0032]: The charging rules may include content rules defining conditions for content charging; See Cai Fig. 1, [0034] the operator of mobile network 102; [0034] OCS 122 may also maintain a profile of content providers having an agreement to supply content to end users of mobile network 102; [0050] In response to receiving the rated CDR having charging data for the call, charging controller 524 processes charging rules to identify which entities are entitled to share in the revenue for the call. Fig. 7, [0081] Rule 1: Calling party number belongs to the local operator AND (Service ID=xxx OR Merchant ID=yyy OR Content Provider=zzz) THEN: [0082] Map out the Content Provider ID based on Service ID, Content ID, or Merchant ID; [0083] Trigger a Diameter Ro CCR [Subscription ID=Content Provider ID, subscription type=content revenue sharing charging, . . . ] to OCS to determine the call cost for the content provider. 522 may send the rated CDR to charging controller (CC) 524 directly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sutaria with Cai’s accessing a stored set of rules for routing of billing information associated with services provided via a network, wherein each rule in the stored set of rules specifies a billing system to receive usage data associated with data usage over the network; identifying an applicable rule in the stored set of rules to be applied to the CDR based on the subscriber identifier and the device identifier. The motivation for the combination is given by Cai which allows the system to direct data usage data to the correct billing platform and improve overall billing system.
Regarding claim 2, in the obvious combination, Sutaria discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating the second CDR based on the applicable rule and contents of the first CDR ([0090] The format of billing records can be varied to satisfy mobile operator requirements. . . . Call Detail Record - CDR).
Regarding claim 3, in the obvious combination, Sutaria discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second CDR comprises an altered version of the first CDR (Fig. 5, [0073]: All of the different reports 106 in reporting database 28 can then be separately formatted and supplied to the different service providers. See Abstract re “the billing data to the network operator providing services to the mobile device”).
Regarding claim 4, in the obvious combination, Sutaria discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the subscriber identifier comprises an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI), the device identifier comprises a mobile station international subscriber directory number (MSISDN) ([0077] The device identifier may be an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) value and the phone number may be a Mobile Station International Integrated Services Digital Network (MSISDN) value), and the route information comprises an access point name (APN) ([0093] and Network Address Identifier (NAI)).
Claim 8 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Sutaria, “system and method for tracking billing events in a mobile wireless network” Abstract).
Claim 9 contains subject matter similar to claim 2 and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Sutaria, “ the billing manager 26 may receive the event information from enterprise client 32 operated by a processor in enterprise server 30” [0040]).
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 2 and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 3 and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 4 and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5-7, 12-14 and 19-20 would be allowable because the closest prior art Sutaria discloses the management server 16 operates a software billing manager 26 that captures event data 42 used for operator billing, but the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a method or apparatus wherein the second CDR is sent to a separate location within the target billing system subject to an access control policy limiting access to the separate location (claim 5); wherein the separate location is accessible only to a service provider associated with the separate location, and wherein the second CDR contains usage data associated only with the service provider (claim 6); updating the first CDR to remove the usage data associated with the service provider; and sending the updated first CDR to a different target billing system (claim 7); and claims 11-14 and 19-20 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated for claims 5-7, as defined in the specification, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F.
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 at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights