DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are pending in this 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 .
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, 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 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 1, 2, 12, 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel (US PGPUB No. 2013/0111555) in view of Okami (US PGPUB No. 2021/0185510) in further view of Nito (JP-2021190971-A) in further view of Shmelev (WO-0057613-A1).
As per claim 1, Leneel teaches a method for enabling a secure communication session, the method comprising: sending a request from a first device to a second device, the request relating to establishing a communication session between the first device and the second device (Abstract, establishing a communication session between two paired devices using a secured channel via a SIM card), the first device having a closed communication SIM (Abstract, secured communication channel for a device using a SIM card); receiving an indication of a determination that the second device has a closed communication SIM ([0022], detecting that the other device has a sibling SIM card that can be paired with) (Examiner Note: closed communication is interpreted as being exclusive or having limited participants); establishing a communication session when the determination is received that the second device has the second device closed communication SIM, wherein the communication session is established between the first device closed communication SIM and the second device closed communication SIM (Abstract, [0022], pairing the two devices via the sibling SIMs to set up a secured communication session).
Leneel does not explicitly teach that each device has an open communication subscriber identity module and along with a respective closed communication subscriber identity module wherein the open communication SIMs are logically separate and distinct from the respective closed communication SIMs; and disabling the first device open communication SIM such that communications with the first device are only possible via the first device closed communication SIM during the established communication session. Okami teaches that each device has an open communication subscriber identity module ([0006], one SIM card is selected for general applications and one for closed network business applications) and along with a respective closed communication subscriber identity module wherein the open communication SIMs are logically separate and distinct from the respective closed communication SIMs ([0095], multiple SIMs can be implemented on a device with one dedicated to secure communications related to a specific application/s related to business or other sensitive areas); and disabling the first device open communication SIM such that communications with the first device are only possible via the first device closed communication SIM during the established communication session ([0025]-[0026], communications are switched between general and business and while in business the communications are made exclusively on the closed network SIM card meaning the second SIM card is disabled until reverting back to a general application).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel with the teachings of Okami, that each device has an open communication subscriber identity module and along with a respective closed communication subscriber identity module wherein the open communication SIMs are logically separate and distinct from the respective closed communication SIMs; and disabling the first device open communication SIM such that communications with the first device are only possible via the first device closed communication SIM during the established communication session, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
The combination of Leneel and Okami does not explicitly teach a communication session established using a closed communication SIM over a private network that avoids a publicly switched telephony system and a publicly available internet. Nito teaches a communication session established using a closed communication SIM over a private network that avoids a publicly switched telephony system and a publicly available internet (Page 2, para. 2, a dedicated cellular line that avoids the public internet using a “closed” SIM).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel and Okami with the teachings of Nito, a communication session established using a closed communication SIM over a private network that avoids a publicly switched telephony system and a publicly available internet, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
The combination of Lennel, Okami and Nito does not explicitly teach an encrypted container comprising a file that stores other files; access to the file is obtainable using software together with a password; and the container includes the software used to communicate over the communication session. Shmelev teaches an encrypted container comprising a file that stores other files (Page 4, lines 10-20, encrypted envelope that contains documents that need to be secured); access to the file is obtainable using software together with a password (Page 4, lines 17-18, using passphrase along with executable program see Abstract); and the encrypted container includes the software used to communicate over the communication session (Abstract and Page 7 lines 28-36, envelope contains executable code used to communicate over the session by encrypting and decrypting the envelope and contents).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami and Nito with the teachings of Shmelev, an encrypted container comprising a file that stores other files; access to the file is obtainable using software together with a password; and the container includes the software used to communicate over the communication session, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
As per claim 2, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second device open communication SIM is disabled such that communications with the second device are only possible via the second device closed communication SIM during the established communication session (Okami; [0025]-[0026], communications are switched between general and business and while in business the communications are made exclusively on the closed network SIM card meaning the second SIM card is disabled until reverting back to a general application – this would be combined with the device to device communication taught in Leenel) see also (Nito; Page 2, para. 2, a dedicated cellular line that avoids the public internet using a “closed” SIM).
As per claim 12, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 2. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 21, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 1. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 3, 4, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev in further view of Mostafa et al. (US PGPUB No. 2025/0031119) [hereinafter “Mostafa”].
As per claim 3, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev method of claim 1 as well as closed communication SIMs see Nito in above rejection of claim 1.
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev does not explicitly teach wherein the first device has a pool of closed communication SIMs and the method further comprises temporarily provisioning the second device closed communication SIM from the pool of closed communication SIMs. Mostafa teaches wherein the first device has a pool of closed communication SIMs and the method further comprises temporarily provisioning the second device closed communication SIM from the pool of closed communication SIMs ([0048], provisioning server can provide a multitude of eSIMs to a device including via a secured channel - each with its own individual profile see [0003]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev with the teachings of Mostafa, wherein the first device has a pool of closed communication SIMs and the method further comprises temporarily provisioning the second device closed communication SIM from the pool of closed communication SIMs, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
As per claim 4, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Mostafa teaches the method of claim 3, wherein each of the open communication SIMs of the first and second devices and each of the closed communication SIMs of the first and second devices are embedded SIMs (Mostafa; [0050], SIMs can be embedded directly into hardware including iSIMs).
As per claim 14, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 4. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 22, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 2 and 3. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationales.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev in further view of Fok et al. (US PGPUB No. 2008/0294384) [hereinafter “Fok”].
As per claim 5, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev teaches the method of claim 1 as well as a secure communication session mode that disables the first device open communication SIM and a software instance unassociated with the communication session (Okami; [0025]-[0026], communications are switched between general and business and while in business the communications are made exclusively on the closed network SIM card meaning the second SIM card is disabled until reverting back to a general application) and closed communication SIMs (Nito; Page 2, para. 2, a dedicated cellular line that avoids the public internet using a “closed” SIM).
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev does not explicitly teach a user interface element switchable between a plurality of positions including: a first position that is selectable to place the first device in a monitor mode that monitors an environment around the first device and tracks data transfer between the first device and intended recipients of the data transfer; a second position that is selectable to place the first device in a privacy mode that disables location services associated with the first device. Fok teaches a user interface element switchable between a plurality of positions (Examiner Notice: a selectable user interface element is “well known” in the art) including: a first position that is selectable to place the first device in a monitor mode that monitors an environment around the first device and tracks data transfer between the first device and intended recipients of the data transfer ([0063], triggering the collection of diagnostic or usage data at a mobile device); a second position that is selectable to place the first device in a privacy mode that disables location services associated with the first device ([0035], triggering the termination of limiting of the collection of GPS data, i.e. location services see [0029]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev with the teachings of Fok, a user interface element switchable between a plurality of positions including: a first position that is selectable to place the first device in a monitor mode that monitors an environment around the first device and tracks data transfer between the first device and intended recipients of the data transfer; a second position that is selectable to place the first device in a privacy mode that disables location services associated with the first device, to provide the devices the ability to control the release of potentially sensitive data from a device.
Claims 6-8, 15, 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok in further view of Mostafa.
As per claim 6, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok teaches the method of claim 5.
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok does not explicitly teach a listing of networks each having a selectable element configured to engage or disengage a communication medium associated with the first device open communication SIM; and a listing of software instances each having a selectable element configured to engage or disengage each software instance of the listing of software instances. Mostafa teaches a listing of networks each having a selectable element configured to engage or disengage a communication medium associated with the first device open communication SIM ([0050], selecting from a list of PLMN to initiate wireless access for a device); and a listing of software instances each having a selectable element configured to engage or disengage each software instance of the listing of software instances (Mostafa; [0050], selecting from a collection of software modules that manage access to particular networks via particular eSIMs – each SIM is associated with a particular wireless network see [0005]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok with the teachings of Mostafa, a listing of networks each having a selectable element configured to engage or disengage a communication medium associated with the first device open communication SIM; and a listing of software instances each having a selectable element configured to engage or disengage each software instance of the listing of software instances, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
As per claim 7, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok teaches the method of claim 5.
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok does not explicitly teach wherein the communication session has a software instance associated therewith and when the third position is selected, only the software instance associated with the communication session is enabled. Mostafa teaches wherein the communication session has a software instance associated therewith and when the third position is selected, only the software instance associated with the communication session is enabled ([0050], only the selected software module for a particular SIM is enabled and switched to an active state).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok with the teachings of Mostafa, wherein the communication session has a software instance associated therewith and when the third position is selected, only the software instance associated with the communication session is enabled, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
As per claim 8, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok teaches the method of claim 5.
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok does not explicitly teach enabling only the software instance associated with the communication session; and disabling software instances unassociated with the communication session. Mostafa teaches enabling only the software instance associated with the communication session; and disabling software instances unassociated with the communication session ([0050], CSS application can enable a selected software module for a particular SIM by placing it in an active state and place others in an inactive state).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Fok with the teachings of Mostafa, enabling only the software instance associated with the communication session; and disabling software instances unassociated with the communication session, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
As per claim 15, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 6. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claim 8. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 23, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 6 and 7. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationales.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev, Fok and Mostafa in further view of Lin et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0356110) [hereinafter “Lin”].
As per claim 9, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev, Fok and Mostafa teaches the method of claim 8.
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev, Fok and Mostafa does not explicitly teach wherein the software instance associated with communication session includes a file sharing application that allows for a file to be only shared via the communication session. Lin teaches wherein the software instance associated with communication session includes a file sharing application that allows for a file to be only shared via the communication session ([0083], files are accessed exclusively via filesystem client which establishes a session with the fileserver).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev, Fok and Mostafa with the teachings of Lin, wherein the software instance associated with communication session includes a file sharing application that allows for a file to be only shared via the communication session, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev in further view of Kao et al. (US PGPUB No. 2016/0066122) [hereinafter “Kao”].
As per claim 10, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev teaches the method of claim 1 as well as closed communication SIMs see Nito in above rejection of claim 1.
The combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev does not explicitly teach wherein the indication of the determination that the second device has the closed communication SIM is received from an access point selected by a user associated with the first device. Kao teaches wherein the indication of the determination that the second device has the closed communication SIM is received from an access point selected by a user associated with the first device ([0024] and [0026], pairing server determines whether the pairing requests are from valid and registered SIM devices – the pairing server is inherently a part of a service provider network selected by the user see Fig. 1 and [0018]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev with the teachings of Kao, wherein the indication of the determination that the second device has the closed communication SIM is received from an access point selected by a user associated with the first device, to provide the devices the ability to easily switch between various networks allowing for ease of use for the user.
As per claim 11, the combination of Leneel, Okami, Nito, Shmelev and Kao teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the second device has an identifier and the indication of the determination that the second device has the closed communication SIM is determined based on comparing the second device identifier with a list of device identifiers (Kao; [0026], pairing server verifies that IMSI identifier from two SIM devices are registered and valid).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leneel, Okami, Nito and Shmelev in further view Lin and in further view of Kao.
As per claim 24, the substance of the claimed invention is identical or substantially similar to that of claims 9 and 10. Accordingly, this claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Leone et al. (WO-2005120007-A1), Rodger et al. (US PGPUB No. 2011/0306318), Diamond et al. (WO-2013103913-A3), Huxham et al. (WO-2013166278-A1), Bain et al. (US PGPUB No. 2014/0376403), Kiswani et al. (US Patent No. 9,104,889), Ford et al. (US PGPUB No. 2015/0358757) all disclose various aspects of the claimed invention including securing and limiting SIM communication sessions between devices.
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 PETER C SHAW whose telephone number is (571)270-7179. The examiner can normally be reached Max Flex.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/PETER C SHAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493 October 7, 2026
