DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 01/25/2024.
Claims 1- 20 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 01/25/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravikanti et al. (US 20230164541 A1), hereinafter “Ravikanti”; and in further view of Dutta et al. (US 20230328505 A1), hereinafter “Dutta”.
Regarding claim 1, Ravikanti teaches A method, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) device, input to execute an application that requires a mobile network connection [Ravikanti: Abstract teaches method for multi-SIM preference selection in wireless network connection];
detecting, by the UE device, multiple available subscriber identity modules (SIMs), wherein each of the multiple available SIMs is associated with a different line of service[Ravikanti: Par. 65- 68 teaches UE dynamically select from available multi SIMs associated with different services];
extracting, by the UE device, an application identifier for the application [Ravikanti: par. 56- 58 teaches of classification scheme of applications];
initiating, by the UE device, a session connection request for the application using a SIM, of the multiple available SIMs, associated with the designated line of service [Ravikanti: Fig. 7; Par. 65- 72 teaches of using SIM from available multi Sim and perform data transfer],
PNG
media_image1.png
726
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ravikanti does not teach determining, by the UE device and based on the application identifier, that the application is associated with a designated line of service.
Nevertheless, Dutta, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches determining, by the UE device and based on the application identifier, that the application is associated with a designated line of service [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79 further teaches of using application ID (AID) for assigning with SIM on telecom network operator].
PNG
media_image2.png
400
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Dutta for using application identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Dutta in the Ravikanti system in order to be able to assign AID for each custom based telecom network operator’s input [Dutta: Par. 15].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches
receiving, by the UE device and from a Mobile Device Management (MDM) system, policy rules governing association of the application identifier with one of the SIMS, of the multiple available SIMs [Ravikanti: Par. 57 teaches of applying data usage policy for selected applications]; and storing, on a MDM client of the UE device, the policy rules [Ravikanti: par. 76 disclosed multi-SIM manager component 241].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 2. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches sending, by an operating system of the UE device, the application identifier to the MDM client [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79 further teaches of using application ID (AID) for assigning with SIM on telecom network operator]; and
receiving, by the operating system and from the MDM client, a signal that indicates an assigned SIM, of the multiple available SIMs, for the application [Dutta: Fig. 6; step 608].
Regarding claim 4, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches sending, by an operating system of the UE device, the application identifier to each SIM, of the multiple available SIMs [Ravikanti: Fig. 6; step 620;
receiving, by the operating system, signals indicting that none of the SIMs store the application identifier [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 78- 81]; and
prompting, by the UE device, a user to provide a designated line of service for the application when none of the SIMs store the application identifier [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79- 85 teaches enabling designated service based on AID].
Regarding claim 5, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 4. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches sending, by the operating system, the application identifier to a SIM, of the multiple available SIMs, to associate the application identifier with the designated line of service [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79- 85 teaches enabling designated service based on AID].
Regarding claim 6, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 4. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches storing, by the SIM associated with the designated line of service, the application identifier [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79- 85 teaches enabling designated service based on AID and configuring].
Regarding claim 7, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches sending, by an operating system of the UE device, the application identifier to a secure element of the UE device [Dutta; Fig. 6; Par. 79 teaches assigning AID and enabling service based on AID];
receiving, by the operating system, a signal indicting that the application identifier is not associated with any SIM, of the multiple available SIMs [Dutta: Par. 59 teaches of configuring AID where SIM must have at least one AID]; and
prompting, by the UE device, a user to select a designated line of service for the application when the application identifier is not associated with any SIM [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79- 85 teaches enabling designated service based on AID]
Regarding claim 8, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 7. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches storing, by the secure element, the application identifier associated with a SIM, of the multiple SIMs, for the designated line of service [Ravikanti: See Fig. 6; Par. 56- 68].
Regarding claim 9, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches wherein one of the SIMS, of the multiple available SIMs, is associated with a default line of service [Ravikanti: See Fig. 6]
Regarding claim 10, Ravikanti teaches A user equipment (UE) device comprising: one or more processors configured to [Ravikanti: Fig. 7]:
receive a command to execute an application that requires a mobile network connection[Ravikanti: Abstract teaches method for multi-SIM preference selection in wireless network connection];
detect multiple available subscriber identity modules (SIMs), wherein each of the multiple available SIMs is associated with a different line of service [Ravikanti: Par. 65- 68 teaches UE dynamically select from available multi SIMs associated with different services];
extract an application identifier for the application [Ravikanti: par. 56- 58 teaches of classification scheme of applications];
initiate, by the UE device, a session connection request for the application using a SIM, of the multiple available SIMs, associated with the designated line of service [Ravikanti: Fig. 7; Par. 65- 72 teaches of using SIM from available multi Sim and perform data transfer],
PNG
media_image1.png
726
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ravikanti does not teach determine, based on the application identifier, that the application is associated with a designated line of service.
Nevertheless, Dutta, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches determine, based on the application identifier, that the application is associated with a designated line of service [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79 further teaches of using application ID (AID) for assigning with SIM on telecom network operator].
PNG
media_image2.png
400
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Dutta for using application identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Dutta in the Ravikanti system in order to be able to assign AID for each custom based telecom network operator’s input [Dutta: Par. 15].
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Ravikanti teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor of a user equipment (UE) device, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions for:
receiving input to execute an application that requires a mobile network connection[Ravikanti: Abstract teaches method for multi-SIM preference selection in wireless network connection];
detecting, by the UE device, multiple available subscriber identity modules (SIMs), wherein each of the multiple available SIMs is associated with a different line of service[Ravikanti: Par. 65- 68 teaches UE dynamically select from available multi SIMs associated with different services];
extracting, by the UE device, an application identifier for the application [Ravikanti: par. 56- 58 teaches of classification scheme of applications];
initiating, by the UE device, a session connection request for the application using a SIM, of the multiple available SIMs, associated with the designated line of service [Ravikanti: Fig. 7; Par. 65- 72 teaches of using SIM from available multi Sim and perform data transfer],
PNG
media_image1.png
726
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ravikanti does not teach determining, by the UE device and based on the application identifier, that the application is associated with a designated line of service.
Nevertheless, Dutta, in the similar filed of endeavor, teaches determining, by the UE device and based on the application identifier, that the application is associated with a designated line of service [Dutta: Fig. 6; Par. 79 further teaches of using application ID (AID) for assigning with SIM on telecom network operator].
PNG
media_image2.png
400
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Dutta for using application identifier. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Dutta in the Ravikanti system in order to be able to assign AID for each custom based telecom network operator’s input [Dutta: Par. 15].
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the combined Ravikanti in view of Dutta teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 18. Ravikanti in view of Dutta further teaches sending, by an operating system of the UE device, the application identifier to each SIM, of the multiple available SIMs [Ravikanti: Fig. 6; step 620].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412