Exhibit 6

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 48-6 Filed 01/29/21 Page 1 of 6
REMARKS 

The Applicants have now had an opportunity to carefully consider the comments 

set forth in the Office Action that was mailed July 23, 2013. All of the rejections and 

objections are respectfully traversed. Amendment and reconsideration of the 

Application are respectfully requested. 

The Office Action 

In the Office Action that was mailed July 23, 2013: 

claims 1 - 9, 17 - 23 and 25 - 28 were rejected under 35 USC §112, first 

paragraph, for allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. 

Summary of Telephone and E-Mail Communications 

On or about, August 1, 2013, in regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 

USC §112, first paragraph, Mr. Thomas Tillander, one of the representatives of the 

applicants, sent an e-mail message to the Examiner, Mr. Quoc Due Tran, identifying 

support in the specification for the phrase "multi-dimensional rule" objected to in the 

rejection and requesting a telephone interview. The Examiner replied by e-mail 

reiterating the position that the phrase "multi-dimensional" was not included in the 

specification and requesting that a formal response be submitted. 

On or about August 2, 2013, Mr. Tillander called the Examiner and asked for 

clarification of the position of the Office as to whether the Office was requiring the literal 

use of the phrase "multi-dimensional rule" in the specification or if the Office would 

consider an argument that the concept of a multi-dimensional rule was supported in the 

specification. The Examiner expressed a willingness to consider such arguments and 

suggested that an identification of support for the phrase should be included in the 

record. Mr. Tillander pointed out that support in the specification for the phrase "multidimensional rule" had been identified, for example, on page 8, of the previously filed 

amendment (Amendment A, filed May 21, 2013). 

In addition to expressing a willingness to consider arguments that the phrase 

"multi-dimensional rule" was supported in the specification, the Examiner expressed a 

willingness to consider proposed alternatives to including the phrase "multi-dimensional 

7 

wsou_ 460_8625758-000061 o 

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 48-6 Filed 01/29/21 Page 2 of 6
rule" in the claims. Additionally, the Examiner indicated that dependent claim 6 

appeared to include allowable subject matter and suggested amending the independent 

claims to include the subject matter of claim 6. 

Later that day, Mr. Tillander transmitted a follow-up e-mail proposing simply 

deleting the word "multi-dimensional" from the claims. 

On or about, August 5, 2013, Mr. Tillander called the Examiner and asked if the 

Examiner had received the follow-up email. The Examiner indicated that he had 

received the email, but that he had not had an opportunity to consider it. The Examiner 

proposed a further discussion be held the following day. Mr. Tillander agreed. 

On or about, August 6, 2013 the Examiner called Mr. Tillander and indicated that 

deleting the word "multi-dimensional" would overcome the present rejections. The 

Examiner also suggested that such an amendment might raise new issues. 

While it was understood that claims 1, 8, 17, 26 and 27 included the objected to 

phrase, no particular claims (other than claim 6) were discussed. No other agreements 

were reached. 

The Claims Comply with the Written Description Requirement 

Claims 1 - 9, 17 - 23 and 25 - 28 were rejected under 35 USC §112, first 

paragraph, for allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement. 

In an effort to support this rejection, the Office Action alleges that the phrase 

"multi-dimensional rule" included in claims 1, 8, 17, 26 and 27 by amendment, in the 

previously filed paper, is "neither disclosed nor fairly suggested in the originally filed 

specification." 

However, it is respectfully submitted that the phrase "multi-dimensional rule" is 

fairly suggested in the originally filed specification. For instance, it is respectfully 

submitted that the multi-dimensional nature of the rule is supported throughout the 

specification, including, for example the paragraphs 41 - 51 and 126 - 128 as the 

paragraphs are numbered in the published version of the application (US 2012/0106722 

Al), text of which is provided below with some bolding and underlinging for emphasis: 

[0041] Said sponson:~hip database 205 contains at least one sponsorship rule SR that 

8 

wsou_ 460_8625758-0000611 

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 48-6 Filed 01/29/21 Page 3 of 6
defines the terms of sponsorship between a sponsor and said first user for example 

depending on: 

[0042] A fourth identifier of an originator of said communication service, e.g. the local, 

national or international phone number of said first user device 101, 

[0043] A fifth identifier of a recipient of said communication service, e.g. the local, 

national or international phone number of said second user device 102, 

[0044] A type of service, e.g. voice, SMS, MMS, data, content, 

[0045] A user location, e.g. geographic area or radio cell for example of said first user 

device 101 or said second user device 102, 

[0046] A direction of said communication service, e.g. outgoing call or SMS, 

incoming call or SMS, roaming call or SMS, 

[0047] A third information about the time said communication service is requested or 

provided, e.g. day of week, time of day, 

[0048] A payment type, e.g. prepaid, post-paid, or 

[0049] A priority information with respect to other sponsorship rules SR. 

[0050] The list given above is not exhaustive. Additionally or alternatively said at 

least one sponsorship rule SR can for example also depend on any other information 

available about said communication service, said user, said sponsor or said 

telecommunications network 103. 

[0051] For example said at least one sponsorship rule SR reflects the parties bound by 

and the terms of a business agreement. The sponsorship rule SR, for example contains 

information about who sponsors, who is sponsored, and what type of service is 

sponsored ... 

[0126] Another embodiments of said invention include sponsorship rules SR that allow 

said balance management server 201 to determine a sponsored usage of said service 

by means of location of said user. To that end said balance management server 201 is 

adapted to determine said location for example from said first identifier, e.g. the phone 

number of the first user device 101 used by said user. This is particularly advantageous 

in case a government agency acts as sponsor for example for all phone calls made 

from a certain geographic area. 

9 

wsou_ 460_8625758-0000612 

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 48-6 Filed 01/29/21 Page 4 of 6
[0127] Also said at least one sponsorship rule can be used to enable said service 

provider to charge for example higher costs to said sponsor, than to said user, for 

example to cover the cost of said service provider for providing said sponsorship 

service. 

[0128] Several of said at least one sponsorship rule SR mentioned above can be 

combined in many ways flexibly to create new sponsorship rules. 

It is respectfully submitted that each of the listed aspects is an example 

dimension or parameter of embodiments of the rule. Since there are plural aspects or 

parameters, the rule is multi-dimensional. In the given example described begging with 

paragraph 41 above, the output of the rule can be a function of the identity of the 

communication originator, identity of the communication recipient, the type of service, 

the user location, the direction of the communication (e.g., incoming or outgoing) and 

so on. 

It is noted that some of these aspects, parameters or dimensions of the rule were 

referenced in association with a reference to paragraphs 42 - 50 in the explanation of 

the phrase "multi-dimensional" provided on page 8 of the previously filed 

Amendment (Amendment A, filed on or about May 21, 2013). 

Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, the claims are being 

amended and no longer refer to "a multi-dimensional rule." Instead, independent 

claims 1, 8, 17, 26 and 27 now refer to a rule, for charging a sponsor of said 

communication service at least a portion of total charges for the communication service 

based on a plurality of parameter values including at least one respective value of 

at least one respective parameter other than an identity of an originator of a request for 

the communication service, an intended recipient of a communication of the requested 

communication service and an identity of the sponsor. 

It is respectfully submitted that this new wording of claims 1, 8, 17, 26 and 27 is 

supported throughout the specification including paragraphs 41 - 51 and 126 - 128 

identified and discussed above in regard to the phrase "multi-dimensional rule." 

The subject claims previously indicated that the "multi-dimensional rule" was 

10 

wsou_ 460_8625758-0000613 

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 48-6 Filed 01/29/21 Page 5 of 6
based at least on at least one respective value of at least one respective parameter 

other.than an identity of an originator of a request for the communication service, an 

intended recipient of a communication of the requested communication service and an 

identity of the sponsor. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that given the discussion of the phrase 

"multi-dimensional rule" found on page 8 of the previous amendment, the deletion of 

the word "multi-dimensional" and the insertion of the phrase indicating that the rule is: -

based on a plurality of parameter values including --, and the other related minor 

changes to the independent claims do not change the scope of the claims and do 

not raise new issues. 

Additionally, it is respectfully submitted that given the subject rejection under 35 

USC §112, first paragraph, and the discussion of the phrase "multi-dimensional rule" 

found on page 8 of the previous amendment, such an amendment should reasonably 

have been expected, as is discussed in MPEP §706.07(a). 

Accordingly, entry of the amendment and reconsideration are respectfully 

requested. 

For at least the forgoing reasons, claims 1 - 9, 17 - 23 and 25 - 28 comply with 

the written description requirement and withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1 - 9, 17 

- 23 and 25 - 28 under 35 USC §112, first paragraph, is respectfully requested. 

Telephone Interview 

In the interests of advancing this application to issue the Examiner is invited to 

telephone the undersigned to discuss the foregoing or any suggestions that the 

Examiner may have to place the case in condition for allowance. 

11 

wsou_ 460_8625758-0000614 

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 48-6 Filed 01/29/21 Page 6 of 6