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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 1 and 6, applicant argues that Chuang in view of Lipovkov fails to teach “the UICC is in the cloud card pool”. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument.
Paragraph 78 of Lipovkov makes clear that a SIM bank (~cloud card pool) may comprise “physical SIM cards”, which is understood in the arts to read on a UICC comprising SIM data. Paragraph 80 of Lipovkov makes this point explicit by reciting “hardware SIM (UICC or eUICC)”. For this reason, examiner believes applicant’s argument to be unpersuasive.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0292109 (Chuang et al.) in view of US 2018/0109942 (Lipovkov).
As to claims 1 and 6, Chuang teaches an apparatus (110, fig 2) for sending subscriber identifiers, comprising: a receiving unit, a processing unit, and a sending unit; wherein
the receiving unit is configured to receive information of a universal subscriber identity module USIM card from a universal integrated circuit card UICC over a first communication connection (UE obtains USIM data from UICC, see figure 2 and paragraphs 2 and 30),
and receive an identity request from a 5G stand alone SA network, wherein the identity request is for requesting acquiring a subscriber concealed identifier SUCI (5G standalone network sends an identity request to UE for a SUCI, see paragraphs 19 and 20);
the processing unit is configured to acquire the SUCI based on the identity request and the information of the USIM card, wherein the information of the USIM card indicates that the SUCI is generated by the apparatus or the UICC (from the USIM information the UE determines which one of USIM or ME-calculated SUCI to use, see paragraph 30); and
the sending unit is configured to send the SUCI to the 5G SA network, wherein the SUCI is for establishing a second communication connection (see paragraph 32).
What is lacking is the universal integrated circuit card UICC in a cloud card pool, the UICC is in the cloud card pool.
In analogous art, Lipovkov teaches a cloud based SIM server capable of storing a plurality of SIMs/SIM cards (~UICC of Chuang) and providing SIM data to a mobile terminal so that it may access 5G network services (see Lipovkov, paragraphs 72-78).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Chuang so as to maximize the use of subscriptions while enhancing the quality of services to users.
As to claims 2 and 7, Chuang further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: acquire the SUCI locally based on the identity request when the information of the USIM card comprises concealment indication information and configuration information of the USIM card does not comprise a service 124 or a service 125; or acquire the SUCI from the UICC based on the identity request when the information of the USIM card comprises concealment indication information and the configuration information of the USIM card comprises the service 124 and the service 125 (see paragraph 30).
As to claims 3 and 8, Chuang further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: send a SUCI acquisition request to the UICC based on the identity request over the first communication connection; and acquire the SUCI from the UICC over the first communication connection (see paragraphs 33 and 34).
As to claims 4 and 9, Chuang further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: acquire the SUCI from the UICC based on the identity request when the information of the USIM card does not comprise concealment indication information and the information of the USIM card does not satisfy any one of the following four conditions; or acquire the SUCI locally based on the identity request when the information of the USIM card does not comprise concealment indication information and the information of the USIM card satisfies any one of the following four conditions; wherein the four conditions are as follows: the information of the USIM card includes configuration information of the SUCI requested by an operator and generated at the apparatus, the information of the USIM card comprises configuration information of an unauthenticated emergency session, the information of the USIM card is information of a pre-Rel 15 card, and the information of the USIM card is information of a Rel 15 card but the Rel 15 card is configured to an unconcealed card (see paragraph 28, the MNO specifies the information in the USIM service table that establishes the SUCI generation method, meaning that at some point said information doesn’t exist [~or needs to be updated] and needs to be provisioned by the MNO).
As to claims 5 and 10, Chuang further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: send a SUCI acquisition request to the UICC based on the identity request over the first communication connection; and acquire the SUCI from the UICC over the first communication connection (see paragraphs 33 and 34).
Conclusion
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641