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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025, and 02/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings were received on 06/12/2023. These drawings are considered by examiner.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12, canceled claims 13-20, and newly added claims 21-28 in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreiling et al (US 2023/0125133), hereinafter “Dreiling“, in view of Maseedu et al (US 2024/0107342), hereinafter “Maseedu“.
Regarding claim 1, Dreiling teaches a system (Dreiling teaches a system for provisioning UE with an eSIM profile), comprising:
a ledger registry service configured to maintain a transaction ledger recording electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) discovery service transactions with respect to unique device hardware identifiers (par [0007] teaches a discovery server such that the discovery server correlates information related to the release of the first eSIM profile with the IMEI of the communication device stored in the inventory database, and requesting at least some of the information related to the release of the first eSIM profile from the discovery server); and
an abstraction layer configured to receive event registration requests and event deletion requests associated with the unique device hardware identifiers from a plurality of entities respectively operated by or on behalf of a plurality of connectivity service providers (CSPs) (pars [0057-0059] [0062]), the abstraction layer being configured to send the event registration requests and the event deletion requests to a respective root subscription manager discovery service (SM-DS) from a plurality of root SM-DSes (pars [0021-0022] teach the activation with connectivity service provider or server), the abstraction layer being configured to record the event registration requests and the event deletion requests via the ledger registry service (pars [0005-0007]).
Dreiling does not explicitly teach an abstraction layer configured to receive event registration requests and event deletion requests associated with the unique device hardware identifiers.
Maseedu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an abstraction layer configured to receive event registration requests and event deletion requests associated with the unique device hardware identifiers (pars [0042-0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Dreiling to Maseedu, in order to provide a wireless telecommunication network including 5G networks, involve continuous updates to the infrastructure and software of the network to ensure proper performance when the update (as suggested by Maseedu in paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dreiling and Maseedu teach the system of claim 1, Dreiling does not clearly teach wherein the abstraction layer functions as an alternative SM-DS.
Maseedu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the abstraction layer functions as an alternative SM-DS (pars [0030-0031] teach the connectivity service as the authentication, and authorization for interservice communications).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Dreiling to Maseedu, in order to provide a wireless telecommunication network including 5G networks, involve continuous updates to the infrastructure and software of the network to ensure proper performance when the update (as suggested by Maseedu in paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dreiling and Maseedu teach the system of claim 1, Dreiling does not clearly teach wherein the ledger registry service and the abstraction layer are operable in an Internet-disconnected mode.
Maseedu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ledger registry service and the abstraction layer are operable in an Internet-disconnected mode (pars [0018] [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Dreiling to Maseedu, in order to provide a wireless telecommunication network including 5G networks, involve continuous updates to the infrastructure and software of the network to ensure proper performance when the update (as suggested by Maseedu in paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dreiling and Maseedu teach the system of claim 1, Dreiling does not clearly teach wherein the ledger registry service and the abstraction layer are implemented on an edge server of a cloud provider network, and the ledger registry service facilitates searches of the transaction ledger for a particular unique device hardware identifier.
Maseedu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ledger registry service and the abstraction layer are implemented on an edge server of a cloud provider network (par [0043]), and the ledger registry service facilitates searches of the transaction ledger for a particular unique device hardware identifier (pars [0010-0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Dreiling to Maseedu, in order to provide a wireless telecommunication network including 5G networks, involve continuous updates to the infrastructure and software of the network to ensure proper performance when the update (as suggested by Maseedu in paragraph [0001]).
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreiling et al (US 2023/0125133), hereinafter “Dreiling“, in view of Maseedu et al (US 2024/0107342), hereinafter “Maseedu“, further in view of Reed et al (US 2024/0193592), hereinafter “Reed”.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dreiling and Maseedu teach the system of claim 1, Dreiling and Maseedu do not clearly teach wherein the transaction ledger is immutable and cryptographically verifiable.
Reed, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the transaction ledger is immutable and cryptographically verifiable (par [0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Dreiling and Maseedu to Reed, in order to provide the digital communications, and more particularly to transacting over a network such as proprietary software including applications for performing transaction processing (as suggested by Reed in paragraph [0002]).
9. Claims 7-8, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreiling et al (US 2023/0125133), hereinafter “Dreiling”, in view of Namiranian et al (US 2024/0334173), hereinafter “Namiranian“.
Regarding claim 7, Drelling teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving an event registration request by an abstraction layer from an entity operated by or on behalf of a connectivity service provider (CSP) (pars [0057-0059] [0062]), the event registration request specifying a unique device hardware identifier (eSIM) discovery service transactions with respect to unique device hardware identifiers (par [0007] teaches a discovery server such that the discovery server correlates information related to the release of the first eSIM profile with the IMEI of the communication device stored in the inventory database, and requesting at least some of the information related to the release of the first eSIM profile from the discovery server) and;
sending, by the abstraction layer, the event registration request to a subscription manager discovery service (SM-DS) (pars [0021-0022] teach the activation with connectivity service provider/server); and recording, by the abstraction layer, the event registration request via a ledger registry service (pars [0005-0007]).
Dreiling does not explicitly teach at least one of: a subscription manager data preparation (SM-DP) address or a SM-DP+ address associated with the CSP.
Namiranian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches at least one of: a subscription manager data preparation (SM-DP) address or a SM-DP+ address associated with the CSP (pars [0005] [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Drelling to Namiranian, in order to provide to download an eSIM profile on a user device are either restrictive or expensive to implement such as machine-to-machine (M2M), and internet of things (IoT) devices (as suggested by Namiranian, in paragraphs [0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dreiling and Namiranian teach the computer-implemented method of claim 7, Dreiling further teaches comprising: receiving an event deletion request by the abstraction layer from the entity, the event deletion request specifying the unique device hardware identifier (pars [0057-0059] [0062]); sending, by the abstraction layer, the event deletion request to the SM-DS (pars [0021-0022] teach the activation with connectivity service provider/server); and recording, by the abstraction layer, the event deletion request via the ledger registry service (pars [0057-0059] [0062]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dreiling and Namiranian teach the computer-implemented method of claim 7, Dreiling further teaches wherein the abstraction layer comprises an alternative SM-DS (pars [0021-0022] teach the activation with connectivity service provider/server).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Dreiling and Namiranian teach the computer-implemented method of claim 7, Dreiling further teaches wherein the SM-DS is the GSM Association (GSMA) SM-DS (par [0081] teaches the network, service provider, carrier that support the connectivity devices).
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dreiling et al (US 2023/0125133), hereinafter “Dreiling“, in view of Namiranian et al (US 2024/0334173), hereinafter “Namiranian“, further in view of Reed et al (US 2024/0193592), hereinafter “Reed”.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dreiling and Maseedu teach the system of claim 1, Dreiling and Namiranian do not clearly teach wherein the ledger registry service implements an immutable and cryptographically verifiable ledger of transactions.
Reed, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ledger registry service implements an immutable and cryptographically verifiable ledger of transactions (par [0154]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Dreiling and Maseedu to Reed, in order to provide the digital communications, and more particularly to transacting over a network such as proprietary software including applications for performing transaction processing (as suggested by Reed in paragraph [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 6, 9, 21-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claim 6, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the abstraction layer receives the event deletion requests from a particular entity of the plurality of entities, the particular entity corresponding to a respective CSP of the plurality of CSPs, subsequent to a device obtaining profile data from a respective subscription manager data preparation (SM-DP) or SM-DP+ service operated by on behalf of the respective CSP, the device being provided with an address of the respective SM-DP or SM-DP+ by the respective root SM-DS as specified in the claim.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose receiving, by the abstraction layer, a historical transaction query for the unique device hardware identifier; searching a ledger of transactions via the ledger registry service for the unique device hardware identifier; and returning one or more historical transactions recorded by the ledger registry service for the unique device hardware identifier; or returning an indication that no historical transactions are recorded by the ledger registry service for the unique device hardware identifier as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T VU whose telephone number is (571)272-8131. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM to 6:00PM.
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 on (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 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.
/MICHAEL T VU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights