DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
1.This action is responsive to the communication filed on March 04, 2025. At this time, claims 1-54 are cancelled. Claims 55-69 are pending and addressed below.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 56-69 are objected to because of the following informalities: These claims recite “A method”, examiner suggests “ The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
4. The statutory 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 statutory obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 55-69 are rejected on the ground of statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 15 of US patent number US 12245110. The conflicting claims are identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are identical in scope than the claims of the patent number 12245110 and are anticipated by the claims 1- 15.
This is a non-provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
4. 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 obviousness-type 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 Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 55, 57-58, 61, 65-68 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-15 and 17 of US patent number 10743152. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 10743152 and are anticipated by the claims 1-4, 6-7, 12-15 and 17.
This is a non-provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 off US patent number 9578480. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are similar in scope than the claims of the patent number 9578480 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a non-provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claims 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent number 8599857. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 8599857 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a non-provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claims 55-60 and 61-69 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 55-60 and 61-69 of US application number 19387437. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are similar in scope than the claims of the application number 19387437 and are anticipated by the claims 55-60 and 61-69.
This is a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent number 10743152. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 10743152 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a Non- provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent number 10225706. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 10225706 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a Non- provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent number 10200833. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 10200833 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a Non- provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent number 10200833. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 10200833 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a Non- provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Claim 55 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US patent number 9130950. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current application contains claims that are broader in scope than the claims of the patent number 9130950 and are anticipated by the claim 1.
This is a Non- provisional obviousness double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hertzberg, US pat.No 20070220092 does not disclose providing an information repository that stores a device identifier associated with a particular device of a social network user having a plan with an MNO (Mobile Network Operator), wherein the device identifier for the social network user is stored in the information repository in response to a registration process that authenticates the social network user;
in response to receiving at least one message related to real-time telecommunication involving the social network user, querying the information repository and retrieving from the information repository the device identifier for the social network user; and communicating information to at least one gateway of the MNO, wherein the information includes the device identifier for the social network user retrieved from the information repository, wherein the device identifier for the social network user is used by the least one gateway of the MNO in carrying out the real-time telecommunication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lim, Kevin US20260149951, title “ Systems and methods for local user equipment information repository at short message service center in a wireless network.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSNEL JEUDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-8:00.
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, Arani T Taghi can be reached at (571)272-3787. 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.
Date: 6/8/2026
/JOSNEL JEUDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights