DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted Ides to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names.
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign/domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119/120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 2/4/25 and 8/7/25 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, , 9-10-12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by “Method And System For Fast Initialization Of An Electronic Subscriber Identity Module At Multiple Locations” by Bouskila US2021/0044947 (“Bouskila”)
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.
With respect to Claim 1, Bouskila discloses: A method of managing network connections at a mobile device (related device of Claim 11, and similar method of Claim 14), the mobile device comprising an embedded subscriber identity module,
eSIM, comprising at least a first profile, the first profile comprising at
least one international mobile subscriber identifier, IMSI (Bouskila at ¶¶10, 35), the mobile device
being configured for communication with a connection manager (Id.) configured for
monitoring Quality of Experience, QoE, data, the method comprising:
obtaining, by the connection manager, connectivity data and location data from the mobile device, wherein the connectivity data comprises QoE data and wherein the location data comprises location data for the mobile device (Bouskila at ¶¶10,11 where the device connects to a first network and provides that network location information, );
determining, by the connection manager, that the mobile device is connected to a current network using an IMSI of a current profile (Bouskila at ¶40 where a bootstrap connection to a network is made);
determining, by the connection manager, whether the current network is a preferred network and/or whether the current profile is a preferred profile based on the QoE data and the location data (Bouskila at ¶¶42,43 where the system can connect the mobile device to a better network based on availability and other relevant factors. See Bouskila at ¶60 for a list of relevant factors. Also see ¶32 for the system using the best profile ); and
instructing, by the connection manager, the mobile device to connect to the preferred network using an IMSI of the preferred profile in response to determining that the current network is not the preferred network and/or in response to determining that the current profile is not the preferred profile (Bouskila at ¶¶60, 61 where the device is switched from one network to the other to provide load balancing. Note: See MPEP 2111.04 and Ex parte Schulhauser, regarding contingent limitations. This limitation does not occur if the system determines that the current network is a preferred network. ).
With respect to Claim 4, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, wherein the QoE data comprises at least one of:
Received Signal Strength Indicator, RSSI, data ();
Reference Signal Received Power, RSRP, data (); Reference Signal Received Quality,
RSRQ, data (); Signal-to-Noise Ratio, SNR, data (); Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio, SINR, data ();
frequency band data ();
Mobile Country Code, MCC, data (Bouskila at ¶46);
Mobile Network Code, MNC, data ();
cell data ();
changes of RAT ();
number of dropped calls ();
number of dropped data sessions ();
data throughput (); and/or number of network
rejections ().
With respect to Claim 5, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises
determining, by the connection manager, that the eSIM does not comprise the preferred profile (Bouskila at ¶27 where if it is determines that a device “lacks a profile for communication with networks within that region, the device is configured to connect to the central server 150, to download all the relevant profiles”. ); and
instructing, by the connection manager, the mobile device to download the preferred profile (Bouskila at ¶27 where if it is determines that a device “lacks a profile for communication with networks within that region, the device is configured to connect to the central server 150, to download all the relevant profiles”. )
With respect to Claim 6, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile device is a network access device (Bouskila at ¶26 where the device “may be destined for use with networks”).
With respect to Claim 9, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, wherein the current profile is a bootstrap profile (Bouskila at ¶¶23, 30, 32).
With respect to Claim 10, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, wherein the connection manager stores a plurality of QoE thresholds (Bouskila at ¶27 where the system stores multiple profiles on the server).
With respect to Claim 12, Bouskila discloses: a connection manager according to claim 11, wherein the connection manager is located on a server (Bouskila at ¶¶40-42).
With respect to Claim 15, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 14, wherein attempting to connect to the preferred network using an IMSI of the preferred profile
comprises initiating a handshake procedure with the preferred network (Bouskila at ¶¶41-43 where the device sends a connection message to the network, establishes a connection, and the network responds by sending over new parameters for a better connection. This is a type of handshake.)
With respect to Claim 16, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises re-connecting to the initial network using the initial profile in response to a failure to connect the preferred network using an IMSI of the preferred profile ().
With respect to Claim 17, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 14, wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the mobile device and from the connection manager, an instruction to download the preferred profile (Bouskila at ¶27).
With respect to Claim 20, Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 14, wherein a current profile is a bootstrap profile (Bouskila at ¶¶23, 30, 32).
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 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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouskila in view of “Method For Enabling Zero Touch Connectivity (Ztc) Access In A Communication System” by Hellebrand et al., EP3902303A1
With respect to Claim 2, while Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, Bouskila does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Hellebrand. Hellebrand discloses wherein determining whether the current network is the preferred network comprises:
identifying one or more available networks at the location of the mobile device (Bouskila at ¶42);
Bouskila does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Hellebrand. Hellebrand discloses wherein determining whether the current network is the preferred network comprises:
further comprises: inspecting QoE data stored at the connection manager for each of the available networks (Hellebrand at ¶25);
identifying an available network which can provide an optimal QoE at the location as the preferred network (Hellebrand at ¶25); and
determining whether the current network and the preferred network are the same network (Hellebrand at ¶25).
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Bouskila and Hellebrand are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, using multiple profiles to connect to a network, seeking a preferred network. Hellebrand when combined with Bouskila results in using the teachings of Bouskila to optimize Bouskila’s teachings by using the best networks. Optimizing a process or system is desirable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to combine Bouskila with Hellebrand.
With respect to Claim 3, Bouskila in view of Hellebrand discloses: a method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether the current profile is the preferred profile comprises:
identifying one or more available profiles which would allow the mobile device to connect to the preferred network (Hellebrand at ¶29); where the system identifies an optimal network and the UE can connect to the best network from a list of networks.)
identifying, based on a lookup table, an available profile as the preferred profile (Hellebrand at ¶29); where the system identifies an optimal network and the UE can connect to the best network from a list of networks.)
Claims 7,8,18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouskila in view of ““Internet Of Things (IoT) Devices Wireless Communication Service Management Platform”by Indurkar US11,190,985
With respect to Claim 7, while Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, Bouskila does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Indurkar. Indurkar, wherein the eSIM is an M2M eUICC (Indurkar at 5:30-57).
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Bouskila and Indurkar are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, using multiple profiles to connect to a network, seeking a preferred network. Indurkar and Bouskila both involve using IoT networks. IoT networks as a standard use eUICC with eSIM. If one wants the system of Bouskila to operate more efficiently it makes sense to use the standard established for an eSIM. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to combine Bouskila with Indurkar to achieve that functionality.
Note that Bouskila at ¶23 discloses where the device with the eSIM can be an M2M device
With respect to Claim 8, while Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, Bouskila does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Indurkar. Indurkar wherein the mobile device is, or is located in, a network-enabled vehicle such as a car, truck, drone or plane (Indurkar at 5:48-57).
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Bouskila and Indurkar are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, using multiple profiles to connect to a network, seeking a preferred network. Indurkar and Bouskila both involve using IoT networks. Many IoT devices are small and transportable. MPEP 2144.04(V)(A) discloses that to make something movable, i.e., putting it in a vehicle, is per se obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to combine Bouskila with Indurkar to achieve that functionality.
With respect to Claim 18, while Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, Bouskila does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Indurkar. Indurkar: a method according to claim 14, wherein the mobile device is, or is located in, a network-enabled vehicle such as a car, truck, drone or plane (Indurkar at 5:48-57).
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Bouskila and Indurkar are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, using multiple profiles to connect to a network, seeking a preferred network. Indurkar and Bouskila both involve using IoT networks. Many IoT devices are small and transportable. MPEP 2144.04(V)(A) discloses that to make something movable, i.e., putting it in a vehicle, is per se obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to combine Bouskila with Indurkar to achieve that functionality.
With respect to Claim 19, while Bouskila discloses: a method according to claim 1, Bouskila does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Indurkar. Indurkar: a method according to claim 14, wherein the eSIM is an M2M eUICC (Indurkar at 5:30-57).
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Bouskila and Indurkar are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, using multiple profiles to connect to a network, seeking a preferred network. Indurkar and Bouskila both involve using IoT networks. IoT networks as a standard use eUICC with eSIM. If one wants the system of Bouskila to operate more efficiently it makes sense to use the standard established for an eSIM. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to combine Bouskila with Indurkar to achieve that functionality.
Note that Bouskila at ¶23 discloses where the device with the eSIM can be an M2M device
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouskila.
With respect to Claim 13, while Bouskila discloses: a connection manager according to claim 11, Bouskila does not disclose in the same embodiment wherein the
connection manager is located on the mobile device (Bouskila at ¶35 where the device can provision connecting to the network itself using a bootstrap profile.)
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Bouskila is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, using multiple profiles to connect to a network, seeking a preferred network. However moving functionality from the server to the mobile phone is a rearrangement of parts, and per se obvious under MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). Also Bouskila at ¶77 states: “[0077] The various embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented as hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof. Moreover, the software is preferably implemented as an application program tangibly embodied on a program storage unit or computer readable medium consisting of parts, or of certain devices and/or a combination of devices. The application program may be uploaded to, and executed by, a machine comprising any suitable architecture.” Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to combine components of Bouskila to achieve functionality where the mobile station can rely on itself to connect to a better network in times when the connection to the server may be degraded.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The documents below were considered.
Wireless Communication Utilizing Selective Bonding With Cellular Network Slices And Sub-Slices by Altman, US2024/0323748. This reference reads on the notion of switching between network slices using eSim profiles tied to QoS, but not necessarily preferred networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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 Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. 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.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights