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 .
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
This action is in response to amendment filed on July 1st, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belwal et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0217223 A1 (hereinafter Belwal), and further in view of Hohl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0152651 A1 (hereinafter Hohl).
As per claims 1, 11, 16, Belwal discloses a provisioning system, comprising:
one or more processors (see processor 06 on page 12 section [0127] and Figure 6); and
a memory (see memory 04 on page 12 section [0127] and Figure 6) operatively coupled with the one or more processors, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a provisioning request corresponding to a computing device (see provision requests corresponds to requesting subscriber device ID on page 10 section [0109]) via a provisioning node (see receiving a provisioning request 310 at the mediation system 304 via provisioning log system 302, or provisioning node as claimed, on page 8 section [0100]);
determine one or more databases associated with the computing device (see provision requests corresponds to requesting subscriber device ID matching criteria on database on page 10 section [0109]) based on the received provisioning request (see step 404 determining whether a plurality of databases being associated with a different wireless communication protocol has already been provisioned to access on page 10 section [109] and Figure 4);
multicast the provisioning request to provision a user associated with the computing device to the determined one or more databases (see provisioning requests 310, 312, and 314 being sent out in parallel to different databases DB1, 2 and 3 in parallel, or multicast requests to databases as claimed on page 9 section [0102]);
Belwal do not disclose expressly: receive a response from the one or more databases based on provisioning identified in the provisioning request; and transmit the response to the provisioning node.
Hohl teaches: receive a response from the one or more databases (see data provision component using database on page 2 section [0016] and see multiple database in Figure 1) based on provisioning identified in the provisioning request (see receiving request message 101 and send response message 301 on page 4 section [0042]); and transmit the response to the provisioning node (see sending response message 301 back to requester data retrieval component DQ on page 4 section [0046]).
Belwal and Hohl are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, data provisioning and request system. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have database response to provisioning request. The motivation for doing so would have been to use database to resolve provision request for data (see page 1 section [0013]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Belwal and Hohl for the benefit of database response message to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 11, 16.
As per claims 2, 12, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to multicast the provisioning request to the one or more databases via an intermediary node (see message broker MB serves as intermediary node on page 2 section [0020] in Hohl). The motivation to combine is same as above.
As per claims 3, 13, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the response comprises one of: a success response, a partial success response, and a failure response (see success response in form of a processed data in response message 301 on page 4 section [0042] in Hohl). The motivation to combine is same as above.
As per claim 6, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the provisioning request comprises at least one of: a transaction identifier (ID), an order ID, uniform resource locator (URL) associated with a service selected by the user of the computing device, file name, and file location (se subscriber URL to request service on page 9 section [0106] in Belwal). The motivation to combine is same as above.
As per claim 7, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are to multicast the provisioning request to the one or more databases over a RESTful interface (see using REST API interface for database query on page 4 section [0047] in Hohl). The motivation to combine is same as above.
As per claim 8, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more databases comprise information about the user associated with the computing device served by a particular network domain (see databases such as DB2 DB3 for subscriber Mobile Directory Number on page 8 section [0101] each database serving different network domain such as 4G, 5G, and LTE on page 9 section [0106] in Belwal). The motivation to combine is same as above.
As per claim 9, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 8, wherein the network domain comprises at least one of: 4G network domain, and 5G network domain (see each database serving different network domain such as 4G, 5G, and LTE on page 9 section [0106] in Belwal). The motivation to combine is same as above.
As per claim 10, Belwal and Hohl disclose the provisioning system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the one or more databases comprise at least one of: 4G mobility database, 4G Internet of Things (IoT) database, 5G mobility database, and 5G IoT database (see each database serving different network domain such as 4G, 5G, and LTE on page 9 section [0106] in Belwal and see serving Internet of Things IoT communication network on page 2 section [0023] in Hohl). The motivation to combine is same as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 14-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per claim 1, the applicant asserts that Belwal do not disclose: “receive a provisioning request corresponding to a computing device via a provisioning node” (see Remarks on page 7). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Belwal teaches: receive a provisioning request corresponding to a computing device via a provisioning node (see receiving a provisioning request 310 at the mediation system 304 via provisioning log system 302, or provisioning node as claimed, on page 8 section [0100]). Belwal teaches a provisioning node as provisioning log system 302.
As per claim 1, the applicant asserts that Belwal do not disclose: “multicast the provisioning request to the determined one or more database” (see Remarks on page 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Belwal teaches: multicast the provisioning request to the determined one or more database (see provisioning requests 310, 312, and 314 being sent out in parallel to different databases DB1, 2 and 3 in parallel, or multicast requests to databases as claimed on page 9 section [0102]). Belwal teaches sending multiple provisioning requests in parallel and at the same time, which is the definition of multicast as claimed.
As per claim 1, the applicant asserts that Belwal and Hohl do not disclose: “receiving a response from the one or more database based on the provisioning identified in the provisioning request” (see Remarks on page 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hohl discloses: receive a response from the one or more databases (see data provision component using database on page 2 section [0016] and see multiple database in Figure 1) based on provisioning identified in the provisioning request (see receiving request message 101 and send response message 301 on page 4 section [0042]); and transmit the response to the provisioning node (see sending response message 301 back to requester data retrieval component DQ on page 4 section [0046]).
Hohl teaches returning a respond message from a database with data provisioning component (see page 4 section [0047]) to a requesting client that is receiving the response message as claimed (see page 4 section [0042]).
As per claim 1, the applicant asserts that Belwal and Hohl does not perform or coordinate provisioning operations (see Remarks on page 8). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hohl teaches client request and receiving data provisioning component from database (see page 4 section [0047]). Hohl teaches provisioning operation for clients by retrieving data from the server (see page 4 section [0047]).
As per claim 1, the applicant asserts that proposed combination of Belwal and Hohl would not render the claimed invention obvious because the two references are structurally and functionally incompatible (see Remarks on page 9). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Belwal discloses which databases to multicast the provisioning requests to. Hohl teaches the receiving the Belwal’s multicast provisioning requests at a database and reply with a provisioning response. Both inventions work sequentially and do not interfere with each other.
As per claims 2 and 12, the applicant asserts that Belwal and Hohl do not disclose: “multicast the provisioning request to the one or more data bases via an intermediary node” (see Remarks on page 10). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Belwal teaches: multicast the provisioning request to the determined one or more database (see provisioning requests 310, 312, and 314 being sent out in parallel to different databases DB1, 2 and 3 in parallel, or multicast requests to databases as claimed on page 9 section [0102]). Belwal teaches sending multiple provisioning requests in parallel and at the same time, which is the definition of multicast as claimed. Hohl teaches a message broker MB that act as an intermediary node as claimed (see page 2 section [0020]).
As per claims 3 and 13, the applicant asserts that Belwal and Hohl do not disclose: “the response comprises one of: a success response, a partial success response, and a failure response” (see Remarks on page 11). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hohl teaches returning a response message 301, or a success response as claimed, on page 4 section [0042].
As per claim 6, the applicant asserts that Belwal do not disclose: “the provisioning request comprises at least one of: a transaction identifier (ID), an order ID, uniform resource locator (URL) associated with a service selected by the user of the computing device, file name, and file location” (see Remarks on page 12). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Belwal teaches provisioning client using subscriber request using URL for specific services, or uniform resource locator (URL) as claimed, to request service on page 9 section [0106].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chris L Parry can be reached at (571)272-8328. 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.
/ALAN S CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights