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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
No claims have been amended, canceled or added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the independent claims 1, 11 and 19—Applicant argues “As noted in the interview summary…the Examiner agrees that neither Gray nor Chughtai, alone or in combination, disclose or suggest “selecting a Wi-Fi network based on the location of the router device” as recited”.
Examiner’s statement during the interview was an initial agreement with Applicant’s attorney that the cited prior art fail teach the claim limitation of “selecting a Wi-Fi network based on the location of the router device”. However, upon further extended consideration and examination, Examiner withdraws that statement. The citations from the prior art CHUGHTAI et al explicitly disclose embodiments that sufficiently teach the language of the limitation. As relied upon in the 35 USC 103 rejection, CHUGHTAI et al states “Cellular router 101 is connectable to one or more wireless communication networks or cellular networks…using wireless communication module(s) 109” (para 0040) and “The location of the cellular router 101 may comprise of GPS coordinates provided by a GPS sensor in cellular router 101 or may be entered by a user of cellular router 101” (para 0044), which establishes that the router comprises a sensor that enables location detection and connecting to a wireless network. Furthermore, CHUGHTAI et al teach “After the cellular router establishes a connection to a wireless network, cellular router can then connect with the communication apparatus using SMS and/or voice calls” (para 0135). These citations from the CHUGHTAI et al reference sufficiently teach the functionality of the claim limitation language connecting to a wireless network based on router location. Applicant has not detailed why or how these citations are deficient in teaching and/or irrelevant to the limitation in question. If there are interpretations or distinctions that disqualify or invalidate these prior art citations as applied, Applicant is encouraged to submit them for clarification. Nevertheless, in light of Examiner’s extended consideration and analysis of the prior art, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is therefore maintained.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
II. 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.
III. CLAIMS 1-4, 6-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRAY (US 2021/0266725) in view of CHUGHTAI et al (US 2019/0373447).
Per claim 1, GRAY teaches a system comprising:
a router device in communication with a first wireless network interface (paras 0016, 0055-56, 0066, 0076, 0079, 0088, 0092—wireless router and local wireless network interface);
one or more sensors (para 0085—sensors); and
one or more processors (paras 0048, 0074-76—processor) configured to perform a method comprising:
determining, based on an output of the one or more sensors, a location of the router device (paras 0016, 0057, 0060, 0067, 0073—location of router, mobile hotspot);
determining whether to establish a Wi-Fi network connection via the first wireless network interface (paras 0141, 0147, 0155—establish Wi-Fi network connection via wireless network interface);
in accordance with a determination to establish a Wi-Fi network connection via the first wireless interface (paras 0076, 0079, 0088, 0092, 0107—establish Wi-Fi network connection via wireless network interface):
instantiating a first virtual private network (VPN) via the Wi-Fi network (para 0073—first virtual private network); and
communicating encrypted data from a client device to the first VPN via the Wi-Fi network (paras 0056-58, 0062, 0066—communicating encrypted information); and
initializing, based on the selected SIM, a connection to a cellular data network via a second wireless network interface (paras 0054-56, 0068-69—connection to cellular data network and second wireless network);
instantiating a second VPN via the cellular data network (paras 0068-69, 0073—second VPN and cellular data network); and
communicating encrypted data from the client device to the second VPN via the cellular data network (paras 0056-58, 0062, 0066, 0068-69, 0073, 0086-88—communicating encrypted information second VPN and cellular data network).
GRAY teaches use of SIM cards (paras 0087, 0093, 0095) and the limitations of the system, as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach the limitations “selecting a Wi-Fi network based on the location of the router device; in accordance with a determination not to establish a Wi-Fi network connection via the first wireless interface: selecting, based on the location of the router device, a SIM from one or more SIMs”. However, CHUGHTAI et al teach based on location of the cellular router and a wireless network service provider for establishing wireless communication, selecting a SIM card for establishing connection to a Wi-Fi network (paras 0044, 0147-151). Furthermore, rejecting a network interface (paras 0051, 0140-142) and upon a cellular router finding and selecting a cellular network, selecting a SIM card that has matching location and network information, MCC and MNC, to one or more of the cellular networks (paras 0150, 0153, 0165).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al for the purpose of selecting a Wi-Fi network and SIM based on the location of the mobile router, which is well-known in the art for ensuring that a stable wireless network is available for selection, via SIM card selection, based on location information of the cellular router to prevent roaming costs.
Claims 11 and 19-20 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 2, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 1, wherein the selecting the SIM from the one or more SIMs is based on a bandwidth restriction associated with the location of the router device (CHUGHTAI et al: paras 0044, 0052—selection of SIM card based on connection bandwidth factor; GRAY: paras 0067-69—SIM and bandwidth restriction based on location of mobile hotspots).
Claim 12 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 2 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 3, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 1, CHUGHTAI et al further teach the system wherein the selecting the SIM from the one or more SIMs is based on a data policy associated with the location of the router device (paras 0044, 0145, 0149—selecting SIM is based on a usage price, connection bandwidth and signal quality associated with the location of the cellular router).
Claim 13 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 3 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 4, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 1, CHUGHTAI et al further teach the system wherein the selecting the SIM from the one or more SIMs comprises selecting a first SIM in accordance with a determination that the location of the router device corresponds to a first country, and selecting a second SIM in accordance with a determination that the location of the router device corresponds to a second country (paras 0135, 0150, 0153—selecting a SIM card that has a Mobile Country Code, MCC, matching to one or more cellular networks country location).
Claim 14 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 6, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 5, CHUGHTAI et al further teach wherein preventing the client device from communicating data via the Wi-Fi network or the cellular data network comprises one or more of: terminating one or more of the Wi-Fi network connection or the connection to the cellular data network, disconnecting the client device from the router device, and turning off the router device (paras 0051, 0112, 0140, 0142, 0145, 0165-166, 0171—router disconnecting and discontinuing transmitting).
Claim 16 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 7, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 1, wherein determining whether to establish a Wi-Fi network connection via the first wireless network interface comprises determining whether a public Wi-Fi access point is available (CHUGHTAI et al: paras 0136, 0156—public network and publicly reachable address of SIM bank and card; GRAY: paras 0016, 0055-56, 0066, 0076, 0079, 0088, 0092—local wireless network interface).
Claim 17 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 8, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 1, CHUGHTAI et al further teach wherein: the second wireless network interface comprises a wireless network interface of a mobile phone; the mobile phone comprises the one or more SIMs; and the method further comprises: in accordance with the determination not to establish a Wi-Fi network connection via the first wireless interface, establishing a connection between the router device and the mobile phone (paras 0051, 0140-142, 0147-150, 0153, 0165—rejecting a network interface and upon a cellular router finding and establishing a connection with a cellular network via, selecting a SIM card that has matching location and network information, MCC and MNC, to one or more of the cellular networks; GRAY: paras 0016, 0048, 0061, 0074, 0087, 0093, 0095—smartphones and cellular phones comprising SIM cards).
Claim 18 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 9, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 8, GRAY further teaches wherein the one or more processors comprises a processor of the mobile phone (paras 0016, 0061, 0074, 0093, 0132—smartphones and cellular phones comprise processors; CHUGHTAI et al: para 0021—processor in devices).
Claim 19 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 9 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
IV. CLAIMS 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRAY (US 2021/0266725) in view of CHUGHTAI et al (US 2019/0373447) and INBAL (US 2024/0356849).
Per claim 5, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 1, along with GRAY’s teaching of first and second VPN (para 0073), yet fail to explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises: monitoring a status of the first VPN or the second VPN; and based on the status of the first VPN or the second VPN, preventing the client device from communicating data via the Wi-Fi network or the cellular data network. However, INBAL teaches detecting connections, then dropping and stopping a client device from communicating over a connection in order to establish a new VPN connection (paras 0086, 0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al and INBAL for the purpose of detecting the status of VPN and dropping connections to the wireless/cellular network to establish a VPN connection, which is well-known in the art for connection to VPN.
Claim 15 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the limitations of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
V. CLAIM 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GRAY (US 2021/0266725) in view of CHUGHTAI et al (US 2019/0373447) and SHIPLEY et al (USPN 8,830,971).
Per claim 10, GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al teach the system of claim 8, GRAY further teach wherein: the router device comprises a battery-powered mobile router device; the router device comprises the one or more sensors; the router device comprises the one or more processors (paras 0016, 0055—cellular router with battery-backup; paras 0048, 0074-76, 0085—processors and sensors); yet fail to explicitly teach the router device is configured to present a graphical user interface via a display; and the one or more processors are configured to perform the method at least partially in response to user input received via the graphical user interface.
SHIPLEY et al teach a mobile hotspot router that include a user interface with a graphical display for receiving and displaying user input (col.7 lines 36-59, col.8 line 65-col.9 line 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to combine the teachings of GRAY with CHUGHTAI et al and SHIPLEY et al for the purpose of provisioning a mobile router/hotspot with a graphical user interface for displaying and receiving user input, which is well-known in the art for extending the improvement of routers.
Conclusion
VI. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2014/0245003, US 2017/0054600, US 2019/0253317.
VII. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
VIII. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453