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 § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Altman US 2013/0310108.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 17, Altman teaches a method, system and non-transitory medium (Paragraphs 32 and 39) comprising:
a processor (microprocessor; Paragraphs 32 and 39) configured to:
determine a geographical area for one or more devices (VSIMs within a device are determined based on location and performance parameters; Paragraph 36);
select a first set of subscriber identification modules (SIMs) based on one or more performance metrics determined for a plurality of SIMs for the geographical area, wherein each SIM of the plurality of SIMs is configured to register with a respective network (bonding device 22 obtains a plurality of VSIMs (64 of Figure 3) and allocates them (66 of Figure 3). The VSIMs obtained/used are based on performance parameters; Paragraphs 55-56. Further, location is used in determining VSIMs; Paragraph 36); and
provide the first set of SIMs selected based on one or more performance metrics to the one or more devices (bonding device 22 obtains a plurality of VSIMs and allocates them (66 of Figure 3). The VSIMs obtained/used are based on performance parameters; Paragraphs 55-56. Further, location is used in determining VSIMs; Paragraph 36).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 18, Altman teaches the processor is configured to:
determine a plurality of updated performance metrics for the plurality of SIMs for the one or more devices (the system determines optimal SIM sets with respect to location and performance. In other words, the performance and location metrics will change over time; Paragraph 36. Based on these changes (i.e. updated performance metrics), the bonding device can obtain new VSIMs; Paragraph 38);
associate the plurality of updated performance metrics with the geographical area for the one or more devices (the system determines optimal SIM sets with respect to location and performance. In other words, the performance and location metrics will change over time; Paragraph 36. Based on these changes (i.e. updated performance metrics), the bonding device can obtain new VSIMs; Paragraph 38); and
store the plurality of updated performance metrics associated with the geographical area for the one or more devices (the new SIM information is downloaded (thus stored); Paragraph 38).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Altman teaches the processor is coupled to a routing device configured to provide a secure channel between one or more devices coupled to each respective network (Bonding device is connected to a plurality of devices such as modems, a laptop, cell phone, etc (See Figure 1). The channels can require encryption (i.e. secure); Paragraphs 33 and 57).
Regarding claim 8, Altman teaches the plurality of SIMs comprise at least one SIM card (Paragraph 17).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in view of Wang et al. “Wang” US 2021/0029604.
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 19, Altman teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a new geographical area having the first set of SIMs of the plurality of SIMs (the system determines optimal SIM sets with respect to location and performance. In other words, the performance and location metrics will change over time; Paragraph 36. Based on these changes (i.e. updated performance metrics), the bonding device can obtain new VSIMs; Paragraph 38. These values may all change based on device mobility among other reasons; Paragraph 22. Thus one can see the location of various devices in the network (including the bonding device) can trigger a new set of sims based on performance/location);
determine that a second set of SIMs is indicated for use in the new geographical area of the device based on the one or more performance metrics (the system determines optimal SIM sets with respect to location and performance. In other words, the performance and location metrics will change over time; Paragraph 36. Based on these changes (i.e. updated performance metrics), the bonding device can obtain new VSIMs (i.e. second set of SIMs for new area); Paragraph 38); and
provide the second set of SIMs of the plurality of SIMs to the device in the new geographical area (bonding device 22 obtains a plurality of VSIMs and allocates them (66 of Figure 3). The VSIMs obtained/used are based on performance parameters; Paragraphs 55-56. Further, location is used in determining VSIMs; Paragraph 36).
Altman does not expressly teach that it is the devices that are moving to a new location; however, Wang teaches that UEs with multiple SIMs may move to a new area/network and the services are no longer supported. When this happens the UE will switch to a different SIM based on location/link quality; Paragraph 23).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Altman to include the UE moving to a new location as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that when a user moves locations and services aren’t as good, the device can switch to another SIM and continue the use of the data service as taught by Wang; Paragraph 40.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 20, Altman does not teach the plurality of SIMs comprise a plurality of embedded SIMs; however, Wang teaches that multiple SIMs can be embedded SIMs; Paragraph 40.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Altman to include embedded SIMs as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that when a user moves locations and services aren’t as good, the device can switch to another SIM and continue the use of the data service as taught by Wang; Paragraph 40.
Regarding claim 9, Altman does not teach the plurality of SIMs comprise at least one embedded SIM; however, Wang teaches that multiple SIMs can be embedded SIMs; Paragraph 40.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Altman to include embedded SIMs as taught by Wang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that when a user moves locations and services aren’t as good, the device can switch to another SIM and continue the use of the data service as taught by Wang; Paragraph 40.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altman in view of Chau et al. “Chau” US 11,546,822.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Altman does not disclose the use of a VPN; however, Chau teaches devices with plurality of SIM cards and performing switching based on various conditions; Abstract. Further, the connection used can be VPN connections; Column 24 Lines 4-14.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Altman to include a VPN as taught by Chau.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a device with multiple SIM cards can establish end-to-end connection and further to include a VPN connection which is more secure as taught by Chau; Column 24 Lines 4-14.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Altman does not disclose the use of a USB; however, Chau teaches devices with plurality of SIM cards and performing switching based on various conditions; Abstract. Further, the connection used can be USB connections; Column 6 Lines 8-19.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Altman to include a USB as taught by Chau.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a device with multiple SIM cards can use USB for internet connectivity as taught by Chau; Column 6 Lines 8-11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights