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 .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 05 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 1-2] with respect to rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on page 2, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “select a SIM or SIM profile with a lowest cost available carrier network, from among a plurality of carrier networks, that meets minimum quality criteria or a highest quality according to quality criteria, wherein the quality criteria are related to one or more of: a minimum signal strength, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)”.
Newly found reference Zheng discloses a system (Fig. 2) where several UEs 202 switch (203) among several SIMs (205) served by corresponding carrier network, by selecting a SIM with the lowest price based on quality of service [Paragraphs 11, 48, 50-51, 65, 67-68, 82]. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the system in Demonget select best SIM based on cost and quality of service.
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 2-3] with respect to rejection of claims 12 and 19 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 12, on pages 2-3, Applicant argues that Demonget fails to teach “determining, by the intelligent subscriber management server, that a UE device of the plurality of UE devices should switch from a current SIM or SIM profile to a different SIM or SIM profile in accordance with a policy”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
Demonget illustrates a system (Fig. 1) where a policy enforcement system 107 is the one who commands policy enforcement clients 109-115 to enforce SIM switching for UEs 113 based on policies [Paragraphs 15, 50].
Regarding claim 19, on page 3, Applicant argues that this claim is not only equivalent to claims 1-2, as it further recites “the policy is predictive and uses deterministic logic based on observations over time, probabilistic logic of one or more artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) models, or both, and/or the computer program is configured to determine the policy based on the one or more AI/ML models”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
Claim 19 is equivalent to former claims [1, 2, 6 and 7] or [12-13, 15]. Hence, this claim is rejected under similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 12, 19 have been amended. Claim 3 has been canceled. Thus, claims 1-2 and 4-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1:
At line 11, it is unclear whether “according to quality criteria” should be “according to the quality criteria”, as, at line 10, it was previously introduced “quality criteria”.
Additionally, at same line 11, the claim further recites “wherein the quality criteria are related…”. Hence, it is unclear which “quality criteria” it would be referring.
For claims 2 and 4-11:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demonget et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0098504) in view of Zheng et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0100097).
Regarding claim 1, Demonget teaches an intelligent subscriber management server (Figs. 1, 6), comprising:
memory storing computer program instructions (memory 930) configured to facilitate roaming intelligent subscriber identity module (SIM) (instructions are stored for switching from a SIM and network to another SIM and network [Paragraphs 17, 50]) switching for a plurality of user equipment (UE) devices (UE selected among plurality of UEs ID_1, ID_N [Paragraphs 17, 50]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer program instructions (processor 920), wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
monitor traffic from the plurality of UE devices (step 602 monitors the traffic of the UE devices) routed through home network infrastructure via a radio access network (RAN) of the home network infrastructure ([Paragraphs 60, 63]), or routed through the home network infrastructure from carrier network infrastructure of another carrier (routed through networks 103-N);
[
determine that a UE device of the plurality of UE devices should switch from a current SIM or SIM profile to a different SIM or SIM profile in accordance with a policy (UE, from the plurality of UEs, is determined to be switching from SIM [Paragraphs 17, 50]) [
instruct the UE device of the plurality of UE devices to switch to the different SIM or SIM profile ([step 608]).
However, Demonget does not explicitly mention: select a SIM or SIM profile with a lowest cost available carrier network, from among a plurality of carrier networks, that meets minimum quality criteria or a highest quality according to quality criteria, wherein the quality criteria are related to one or more of: a minimum signal strength, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)… based on the selection.
Zheng teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
select a SIM or SIM profile with a lowest cost available carrier network, from among a plurality of carrier networks, that meets minimum quality criteria or a highest quality according to quality criteria, wherein the quality criteria are related to one or more of: a minimum signal strength, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)… based on the selection (Zheng discloses a system (Fig. 2) where several UEs 202 switch (203) among several SIMs (205) served by corresponding carrier network, by selecting a SIM with the lowest price based on quality of service [Paragraphs 11, 48, 50-51, 65, 67-68, 82]. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that the system in Demonget select best SIM based on cost and quality of service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Demonget) by switching SIMs based on quality of service (as taught by Zheng) for the purpose of improving productivity of the service (Zheng – Paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 2, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to take into account locations of the plurality of UE devices, hardware capabilities of the plurality of UE devices, compatibility of the plurality of UE devices with carrier networks associated with a plurality of SIMs or SIM profiles, services that the plurality of UE devices are configured to use, carrier networks that are available in respective locations of the plurality of UE devices, network quality criteria, subscription criteria, cost criteria, or any combination thereof, when determining which SIM or SIM profile to switch to ([Paragraphs 24, 32, 35]).
Regarding claim 4, Demonget further teaches intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the policy is a tiered policy comprising a carrier network preference order based on location or a preference for different carrier networks for different services (policy enforcement system 107 generates the policy requirements [Paragraphs 38, 46-47, 58]).
Regarding claim 5, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the policy is reactive and the computer program instructions are configured to cause the UE device of the plurality of UE devices to switch to the different SIM or SIM profile based on a drop in signal strength below a minimum threshold, detection that a RAN for a carrier of the current SIM or SIM profile has gone down, a change in a location of the UE device, detection that an antenna of the UE device is no longer working such that a band can no longer be used, or any combination thereof ([Paragraphs 47, 51]).
Regarding claim 6, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the policy is predictive and uses deterministic logic based on observations over time, probabilistic logic of one or more artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) models, or both ([Paragraph 22]).
Regarding claim 7, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to determine the policy based on one or more artificial intelligence (AI) / machine learning (ML) models ([Paragraph 22]).
Regarding claim 8, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: receive information pertaining to conditions detected by the plurality of UE devices ([Paragraph 26]); and use the received information at least in part for determining that the UE device should switch to the different SIM or SIM profile ([Paragraph 56]).
Regarding claim 9, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions are configured to analyze network loading and congestion, subscription information, carrier contract information, or any combination thereof, to determine which SIM or SIM profile to switch to ([Paragraph 18, 70]).
Regarding claim 10, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the different SIM or SIM profile is for a first service ([Paragraph 16]), the instructions to switch to the different SIM or SIM profile comprise selection of another different SIM or SIM profile for a second service ([Paragraph 23]), and the first service comprises voice and short message service (SMS) ([Paragraph 41]) and the second service comprises data, or vice versa ([Paragraph 18]).
Regarding claim 11, Demonget further teaches the intelligent subscriber management server of claim 1, wherein the computer program instructions are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: use a trained AI/ML model for intelligent SIM switching to assist in determining the SIM or SIM profile to switch to, wherein the trained AI/ML model is trained using hardware information from UE devices, connection information from the UE devices, network congestion information, information pertaining to upcoming events, or any combination thereof ([Paragraphs 28, 24, 47, 91]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Demonget et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0098504).
Regarding claim 12, Demonget teaches a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1, 6) for facilitating roaming intelligent subscriber identity module (SIM) switching for a plurality of user equipment (UE) devices (instructions are stored for switching from a SIM and network to another SIM and network [Paragraphs 17, 50]), comprising:
monitoring, by an intelligent subscriber management server, traffic from the plurality of UE devices (step 602 monitors the traffic of the UE devices) routed through home network infrastructure via a radio access network (RAN) of the home network infrastructure ([Paragraphs 60, 63]), or routed through the home network infrastructure from carrier network infrastructure of another carrier (routed through networks 103-N);
determining, by the intelligent subscriber management server, that a UE device of the plurality of UE devices should switch from a current SIM or SIM profile to a different SIM or SIM profile in accordance with a policy (UE, from the plurality of UEs, is determined to be switching from SIM. Additionally, as illustrated in Fig. 1, a policy enforcement system 107 is the one who commands policy enforcement clients 109-115 to enforce SIM switching for UEs 113 based on policies [Paragraphs 15, 50] [Paragraphs 17, 50]); and
instructing the UE device of the plurality of UE devices to switch to the different SIM or SIM profile, by the intelligent subscriber management server ([step 608]).
Regarding claims 13-18, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 2, 5-10.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 12-13, 15 (for claim 19), and claim 16 (for claim 20).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
February 13, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633