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 .
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho et al. (US 2017 /0223598 A1), hereinafter “Ho” in view of Demonget et al. (US-20240098504-A1), hereinafter “Demonget”.
Claims 1, 11 and 19:
Regarding claim 1, Ho teaches, a method ([title] and [Abstract]) comprising:
detecting, by a mobile virtual network operator, that an improvement in telecommunication service would result from performing a network switch that switches a home network of a client of the mobile virtual network operator from a first network infrastructure of a first mobile network operator that is serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator to a second network infrastructure of a second mobile network operator that is also serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator (Ho: [0015], “The techniques can detect a condition indicative of (i) a current or predicted level of cellular activity via the first cellular connection below an inactivity threshold and (ii) an available second cellular connection with a different second cellular carrier associated with the MVNO. For example only, the available second cellular connection may be a potentially better cellular connection than the first cellular connection.”, and “a difference between the current cellular connection and the new cellular connection is greater than a minimum strength improvement threshold. In response to detecting the condition, the mobile computing device can terminate the first cellular connection and establish a second cellular connection with the second cellular carrier of the MVNO.”; Fig.3, step 316 showing switching to second cellular connection with other cellular carrier of same MVNO).
Ho however fails to teach, detecting, by the mobile virtual network operator, that the network switch is prohibited at least in part by detecting that the client has failed to satisfy a condition that is controlled at least in part by the client and that is necessary for performing the network switch successfully.
Demonget in the same field of endeavor teaches, in [0019] and [0020], the following:
[0019] In some embodiments, each identity 113 may be associated with one or more particular networks 103. For instance, in this example, UE identity 113-1 is associated with network 103-1, and UE identity 113-2 is associated with network 103-2 …. policy enforcement client 109 may automatically switch ( or may instruct UE identity repository 111 to switch) UE 105 from UE identity 113-1 to UE identity 113-2 in situations where UE 105 is not authorized to communicate particular traffic via UE identity 113-1, but is authorized to communicate the traffic via UE identity 113-2.”; and
[0020] Policy enforcement client 109 and UE identity repository 111 may, for example, communicate via one or more suitable APis, interfaces, or other suitable communication pathways. As such, policy enforcement client 109 may be able to identify particular networks 103 that are associated with particular UE identities 113, and may be able to select, activate, etc. a particular UE identity 113 (e.g., based on instructions or other communications from policy enforcement system 107 indicating a particular network 103, as discussed below), and/or may be able to instruct UE identity repository 111 to select, activate, etc. a particular UE identity 113.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify disclosure by demonget by moving the activity of the policy enforcement client 109 of Demonget to the MVNO serving the client and combining with the disclosure by Ho regarding network switching, to come up with the claimed invention motivated by supporting particular service not provided by the current network and switching to a different network where service may be provided as described by Demonget in [0016], “As one example, the policies may indicate that UE 105 (and/or one or more other UEs, or all UEs) is not authorized to access a particular website via network 103-1, that UE 105 is not authorized to access a particular service (e.g., send and/or receive voice traffic, traffic associated with a particular application, etc.) via network 103-1, that network 103-1 does not support a particular type of service or communication session, and/or are that UE 105 is otherwise unauthorized to communicate via network 103-1.”.
The claim, prompting, by the mobile virtual network operator, in response to the mobile virtual network operator detecting that the network switch is prohibited at least in part by detecting that the client has failed to satisfy the condition that is controlled at least in part by the client and that is necessary for performing the network switch successfully, the client to satisfy the necessary condition in order for the mobile virtual network operator to perform the network switch that switches the client of the mobile virtual network operator from the first network infrastructure of the first mobile network operator that is serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator to the second network infrastructure of the second mobile network operator that is also serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator, is implied based on the discussion above regarding disclosure by Demonget regarding instruct the UE to switch the network. Switching the network is switching the identity 113, and disclosed in detail in [0017], where identities are associated with UICC, SIM, USIM etc.
Claims 2, 12 and 20:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the condition comprises the client using a mobile device model that is not supported by the second network infrastructure of the second mobile network operator that is also serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator (implied by combination of disclosures discussed above in claim 1, disclosure in Ho: [0024], “In some implementations, the second cellular connection may end up being worse than the first cellular connection. In these scenarios, the process may repeat and the condition may be detected, upon which a switch back to the first cellular connection may be performed. Alternatively, in these scenarios, a third different cellular carrier (not shown) may be associated with the MVNO 124, and upon detecting the condition, a switch to the third cellular carrier may be performed.”; and consideration of Device model of the claim to be functionally equivalent to the SIM as disclosed in Demonget. If a device model is compatible with the SIM’s network standards (e.g., GSM, USIM, ISIM) and the SIM is transferable to that model, the device can “take on” the subscriber’s identity and services. In this sense, the device model and SIM are functionally equivalent for service continuity — the SIM’s stored IMSI, ICCID, and keys allow the device to authenticate and access the same network services as the original device. With eSIM technology, the SIM function is embedded in the device. If the eSIM is provisioned with the same subscriber credentials as a physical SIM, the device model and SIM are effectively equivalent — the device’s hardware and software are the only “module” needed for network access.
Claims 3 and 13:
Regarding claim 3, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 2 (discussed above).
The claim, wherein prompting, by the mobile virtual network operator, in response to the mobile virtual network operator detecting that the network switch is prohibited at least in part by detecting that the client has failed to satisfy the condition that is controlled at least in part by the client and that is necessary for performing the network switch successfully, the client to satisfy the necessary condition in order for the mobile virtual network operator to perform the network switch comprises prompting, by the mobile virtual network operator, the client to upgrade to a second mobile device model that is supported by the second network infrastructure of the second mobile network operator that is also serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator, though not expressly taught by combination of Ho and Demonget, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the discussion above in claim 1 citing disclosure by Demonget in [0019] regarding UE identities associated with different network, and “select a particular UE identity 113 when receiving an indication ( e.g., from policy enforcement system 107 and/or from some other source) of a particular network 103 to which UE 105 should connect.”; Ho: Clm.1, “in response to detecting the condition, controlling the communication device to: (a) terminate the first cellular connection, and (b) initiate the second cellular connection with the second cellular carrier associated with the MVNO.”. Mobile device may be equated to Subscriber identity modules and alternatives as discussed above in claim 2.
Claims 4 and 14:
Regarding claim 4, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising performing, by the mobile virtual network operator, the network switch (implied by discussion above in Clm.3).
Claims 5 and 15:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 4 (discussed above).
The claim, receiving, by the mobile virtual network operator, an indication that the client has satisfied the condition that is controlled at least in part by the client and that is necessary for performing the network switch successfully, though not expressly taught by combination, is obvious that switch of the subscriber identity module, as discussed above in Clm.1, will provide indication to MVNO that necessary action is been performed and that switching is initated, as disclosed in Ho Clm.1, “(b) initiating, by the mobile computing device, the second cellular connection with the second cellular carrier associated with the MVNO.”.
Claims 6 and 16:
Regarding claim 6, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 5 (discussed above), wherein the mobile virtual network operator performs the network switch in response to receiving the indication that the client has satisfied the condition that is controlled at least in part by the client and that is necessary for performing the network switch successfully (implied based on discussion above in Clm.1 and Clm.5).
Claims 7 and 17:
Regarding claim 7, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 4 (discussed above), wherein the network switch is performed invisibly by switching an active profile on a subscriber identity mobile for the client from a first profile that is specific to the first network infrastructure of the first mobile network operator to a second profile that is specific to the second network infrastructure of the second mobile network operator (Demonget: [0017], “UE 105 may implement a Dual SIM Dual Standby ("DSDS") standard or some other suitable standard, protocol, API, etc. that allows UE 105 to maintain and select between (e.g., switch between) multiple different identities, profiles, SIM profiles, etc. (referred to simply as "identities" 113). In some embodiments, UE 105 may select one particular UE identity 113 as "active" at any given time, where other UE identities 113 ( e.g., non-selected UE identities 113) may be "idle," "inactive," etc”; Fig.1 shows multiple identities 113-1 to 113N; [0018] “UE 105 (e.g., wireless interface 115) may utilize an identifier associated with UE identity 113-1 (e.g., a particular IMSI, SUPI, GUTI, etc., represented in the figure as "ID_1") to communicate with one or more networks (e.g., via base station 101). In other scenarios, such as when UE identity 113-2, is active, UE 105 may utilize an identifier associated with UE identity 113-2 (represented in the figure as "ID_2") to communicate with one or more networks.”).
Claims 8 and 18:
Regarding claim 8, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 7 (discussed above), wherein performing the network switch comprises switching an active profile on a subscriber identity module card of the client from a first profile corresponding to the first network infrastructure to a second profile corresponding to the second network infrastructure (discussed above in Clm.7).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein prompting the client to satisfy the necessary condition comprises providing an upgrade recommendation for a compatible mobile device model that operates with the second network infrastructure (Use of different SIM or identity modules are discussed above in Clm.1; device model and identity module equivalency is discussed above in Clm.2).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Ho and Demonget teaches the method of claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the prompting comprises sending a notification to the client with instructions on how to meet the necessary condition for the network switch (Discussed above in Clm.1 and disclosure of Demonget [0019].).
Claims 11-20 are changes in category with respect to claims 1-10, as shown in combinations above. Claim elements are discussed in claims 1-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0022014 A1 discloses techniques for binding and dynamic provisioning of international mobile equipment identifier (IMEI) values with cellular wireless service profiles, such as subscriber identity modules (SIMS) on physical SIM (pSIM) cards and electronic SIMs (eSIMs) on an embedded universal integrated circuit card ( eUICC) of the mobile wireless device;
US 2025/0274748 A1 discusses performing network switch by porting a phone number of a client of the mobile virtual network operator from a source network infrastructure of a source mobile network operator to a target network infrastructure of a target mobile network operator that is serving clients for the mobile virtual network operator,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights