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 .
Double Patenting
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 Ornum, 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11596027. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, for an example, claim 1 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of US Patent 11596027 and change “to a mobile network” to “to a cellular network” which is a well known technology in a mobile network, as shown in the table below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with a well known “cellular network” technology in order to yield to an expected result.
Instant application
US Patent 11596027
1. A method comprising steps of:
responsive to a device having a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card equipped therein connecting to a cellular network,
intercepting traffic associated with the device traversing the cellular network; forwarding the traffic to a cloud-based system; and
processing the traffic from the device according to policy enforced by the cloud-based system.
1. A method, implemented in a cloud-based system, comprising:
responsive to a client device having a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card therein connecting to a mobile network from a mobile network operator,
receiving authentication of the client device based on the SIM card;
receiving forwarded traffic from the client device; and
processing the forwarded traffic according to policy, wherein the policy is determined based on one of a user of the client device and a type of the client device, each being determined based on the SIM card, wherein the SIM card is configured to implement a secure tunnel from the SIM card to the cloud-based system, wherein the SIM card executes JavaCard code for implementation of the secure tunnel.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JIANG (US 20180146361).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, JIANG teaches responsive to a device having a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card equipped therein connecting to a cellular network (Fig. 4, 102 User mobile device and [0047] based on the cellular registration of the device 102 on the current SIM profile), intercepting traffic associated with the device traversing the cellular network (Fig. 2 steps 202-204, [0029] gateway 110 receives a location update message of user 102 and … at step 204, the gateway 110 enables either a real profile or a virtual profile of a partner operator to enable local data service for the user 102);
forwarding the traffic to a cloud-based system (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4); and processing the traffic from the device according to policy enforced by the cloud-based system ([0030] The partner operator (e.g. VPMN 106) within the ecosystem is selected by a cloudSIM hub 120 depending on either location of the user's device, and quality and regulatory requirements of roaming service associated with the user's device, [0047] a roaming with best rate (e.g. Rogers) profile or a local profile (e.g. ATT) can be loaded to the SIM provisioned by cloudSIM hub 120 over the air via a cloud business logic).
Regarding claim 17, JIANG teaches a plurality of nodes communicatively coupled to one another (Fig. 1); and a cloud edge (Fig. 1, 110 Gateway coupled with 120 CloudSIM Hub), wherein the cloud edge is configured to responsive to a device having a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card equipped therein connecting to a cellular network (Fig. 4, 102 User mobile device and [0047] based on the cellular registration of the device 102 on the current SIM profile), intercept traffic associated with the device traversing the cellular network (Fig. 2 steps 202-204, [0029] gateway 110 receives a location update message of user 102 and … at step 204, the gateway 110 enables either a real profile or a virtual profile of a partner operator to enable local data service for the user 102), and forward the traffic to the plurality of nodes (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, and [0030] The partner operator (e.g. VPMN 106) within the ecosystem is selected by a cloudSIM hub 120 depending on either location of the user's device, and quality and regulatory requirements of roaming service associated with the user's device).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 20, JIANG teaches the cellular network is any of an Application-aware Networking (APN) network ([0055] A roaming user or a local user with a smartphone with an unchanged HPMN 104's SIM using an application downloaded from an application store) and a network slice ([0047] a roaming with best rate (e.g. Rogers) profile or a local profile (e.g. ATT) can be loaded to the SIM provisioned by cloudSIM hub 120 over the air via a cloud business logic – Examiner notes that the user device 102 is one of many user devices in the system and requires a network slice to get a service).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, JIANG teaches wherein all traffic traversing the specific cellular network is processed by the cloud edge and forwarded to the cloud-based system (Fig. 1 and [0100] The private cloud may also be connected to Public cloud so that subscribers of one member of either cloud could roam and use plans offered by other cloud).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, JIANG teaches wherein the intercepting is via the cloud edge, wherein the cloud edge is associated with (Fig. 2 steps 202-204, [0029] gateway 110 receives a location update message of user 102 and … at step 204, the gateway 110 enables either a real profile or a virtual profile of a partner operator to enable local data service for the user 102), and adapted to forward traffic to the cloud-bases system ([0100] The private cloud may also be connected to Public cloud so that subscribers of one member of either cloud could roam and use plans offered by other cloud).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, JIANG teaches wherein the SIM card is previsioned to only route traffic through the specific cellular network ([0076] if user device 102 is registered in NTT DoCoMo network in Japan, the client knows the location of the device due to the cellular registration of the device and identifies that Softbank in Japan is the only local partner operator from the list of local operator partnerships in Japan).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, JIANG teaches wherein the specific cellular network is associated with a customer of the cloud-based system, and wherein processing the traffic from the device is based on the customer of the cloud-based system ([0048] all the services (Registration, data services) will be provided by AirTel India network. The CloudSIM Home Network (of Globetouch in Sweden) will only have provisioning and billing interfaces implemented with AirTel India brovisioning and billing systems to have necessary controls on the processes and have visibility of overall service).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, JIANG teaches the device is any device capable of being equipped with a SIM card ([0026] The interface could be a software application that helps in maintaining a bi-directional connection with gateway 110 to exchange information related to the roaming services, and a bi-directional connection with user 102 via his/her mobile devices' user interface. The interface for user could be either a mobile application, a web interface, a desktop interface, an IoT device, a connected car interface, or even a smart watch interface).
Regarding claim 18, JIANG teaches wherein the plurality of nodes are adapted to process the traffic from the device according to policy enforced by the cloud-based system (Fig. 4, 102 User mobile device, and [0047] based on the cellular registration of the device 102 on the current SIM profile).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG (US 20180146361).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, JIANG teaches the cellular network is a specific cellular network having a cloud edge (Fig. 1, VPMN 120 CloudSIM Hub) and gateway (Fig. 1, 110 VPMN Gateway). JIANG does not expressly teach a cloud edge as its gateway. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a cloud edge as its gateway since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding claims 19, JIANG teaches, as above in claim 3, wherein the cellular network is a specific cellular network having the cloud edge and gateway. JIANG does not expressly teach having the cloud edge provisioned as its gateway. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cloud edge provisioned as its gateway since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formally been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sicard (US 20220030423) teaches “responsive to a device having a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card equipped therein connecting to a network ([0015] a wireless mobile device able to access both a cellular network and a Wi-Fi network), intercepting traffic associated with the device traversing the network ([0016] MDM 104 in some examples may further set the various functions and/or features of device 102 based on device policies set by an enterprise and [0017] MDM 104 may further include an On-Device Activation (ODA) agent 104a for facilitating the SIM 102a activation of device 102); forwarding the traffic to a cloud-based system and processing the traffic from the device according to policy enforced by the cloud-based system ([0016] MDM 104 may include an on-premise or cloud based server for transmitting data, system configurations, commands, etc., to device 102). Sicard further teaches Fig. 3, and [0014] provide secure and automated authentication for connection of a device to a public Wi-Fi network.
Ganesan et al. (US 11582601) discloses (26) Traditionally, subscriber identification module (SIM) cards are removable cards that store the authentication information needed for a device to access a cellular network, such as its international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) number, integrated circuit card ID (ICCID).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467