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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim objection on claims 7-20 are withdrawn since claims 7 and 15 are being amended accordingly.
Claim rejection under 35 USC §112(b) on claims 3 and 11 are withdrawn since claim 3 has been amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 15, the applicant argued that, “…Namiranian has not been shown to disclose "auditing subscription data stored in the subscription database to generate an auditing result" or "based on the auditing result indicating no error in the subscription database, performing the operation," as recited in claim 1. Namiranian is said to performs ICCID matching to verify that an eSIM profile has been loaded into a profile data store (Office Action, page 4) -it has not been shown to audit subscription data for errors. Namiranian's audit function, described at paragraph [0042], monitors and corrects problems in the distribution of eSIM profiles to subscription management services (e.g., profiles routed to the wrong service or stored in the wrong data store type), not errors within subscription data itself.…” in page 10-11. [Emphasis added]
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim construction
The claim broadly recites “subscription data” and “indication no error in the subscription database”. There is nothing in the claim that limit or define “what the subscription data is/are” and “what or how error related to subscription data”. The claim has been constructed under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BR) where their meaning has been consistent with the specification.
In specification recite as follows:
[0001] A telecommunication service provider may have multiple databases to store subscription data associated with all its subscribers. Subscription data, for example, may be structured and stored with the keys, indexes, and/or identities being hosted by a database routing layer (also referred to as an access layer, or front-end servers), while the real subscription data being hosted and distributed across multiple redundant storage clusters (also referred to as storage layers, or back end servers). Each subscription may have multiple keys, indexes, and/or identities that can be used for accessing the subscription profile and/or for provisioning operations. [Emphasis added]
[0032] The present disclosure implements an approach on the provisioning orchestrator 112 to proactively audit the database and/or the storage segment each time a provisioning operation and/or a subscriber profile access operation is to be operated…[Emphasis added]
[0035] The data storage deployment 200 illustrates a linkage between the indexes associated with a subscriber stored in a front-end server and the subscriber profiles stored in a back-end server a storage segment. As illustrated, front end (FE) servers 202 may store a plurality of indexes 204 (e.g., index 204(1), index 204(2), index 204(3), index 204(4), index 204(5), index 204(6), index 204(7), index 204(8), . . . ) associated with subscribers 206 of a telecommunication service provider, and back end (BE) servers 208 may store the subscriber profiles 210 of those subscribers (e.g., profile 210(1), profile 210(2), profile 210(3), profile 210(4), profile 210(5), . . . ). In some examples, one or more of index 204(1), index 204(2), index 204(3), index 204(4), index 204(5), index 204(6), index 204(7), index 204(8), . . . ) (hereinafter referred to as indexes 204) associated with a particular subscriber may be linked to a corresponding profile of the particular subscriber stored in the BE servers 208. [Emphasis added]
In view of the above, the specification, similar to the claim, broadly defined the “subscriber data” as “data associated with all its subscribers”. There is no specific or specifical definition of “subscriber data” is provided in the entire disclosure. Then, the speciation goes on provide the structure (e.g. keys, index, identifies, profiles) of how subscribers data are being stored. Thus, specification clear shows that auditing is performed on data associated with all its subscribers in the stored structure (e.g. key/index/identifiers/profile).
Prior art
Namiranian discloses:
[0014] This disclosure is directed to techniques that enable an eSIM profile management platform of a wireless communication carrier to receive service data feeds from multiple subscription management services. Each of the multiple subscription management services is responsible for the management of one or more sets of eSIM profiles that are provisioned to eUICCs of particular user devices. A set of eSIM profiles managed by each subscription management service may belong to one or more specific entities, such as a wireless communication carrier, or multiple wireless communication carriers. In another example, the one or more specific entities may include third-party partner of a wireless communication carrier, or multiple third-party partners of the wireless communication carrier. A third-party partner of the wireless communication carrier may be a provider that provides content or services to the subscribers of the carrier, a M2M device vendor, a M2M device operator, and/or so forth. Each of the subscription management services may be provided by one or more subscriber managers. In some embodiments, each of the subscription management services may be provided by at least one Subscription Manager Data Preparation (SM-DP), at least one Subscription Manager Data Preparation Plus (SM-DP+), and at least one Subscription Manager Secure Routing (SM-SR). [Emphasis added]
0027] The backend servers of the wireless communication carrier 102 may provide an eSIM profile management platform 106. The eSIM profile management platform 106 may serve as a central interface between the various entities and one or more subscription management services, such as the subscription management services 104(1)-104(N). In various embodiments, the eSIM profile management platform 106 may be an application program interface (API) abstraction layer that provides multiple APIs to the various entities, in which the entities may call the APIs to perform specific tasks. Accordingly, the eSIM profile management platform 106 enables these entities to manage eSIM profiles for deployment into eUICCs of user devices. Each of the subscription management services 104(1)-104(N) is responsible for the management of one or more sets of eSIM profiles that are provisioned to eUICCs of particular user devices. A set of eSIM profiles managed by each subscription management service may belong to one or more specific entities, such as the wireless communication carrier 102, or an associated wireless communication carrier that is hosted by wireless communication carrier 102. In another example, the one or more specific entities may include a third-party partner of a wireless communication carrier 102, or multiple third-party partners of the wireless communication carrier 102. A third-party partner of the wireless communication carrier may be a provider that provides content or services to the subscribers of the carrier, a M2M device vendor, a M2M device operator, and/or so forth. Each of the subscription management services 104(1)-104(N) may be provided by one or more subscriber managers. In some embodiments, each of the subscription management services 104(1)-104(N) may be provided by at least one Subscription Manager Data Preparation (SM-DP), at least one Subscription Manager Data Preparation Plus (SM-DP+), and at least one Subscription Manager Secure Routing (SM-SR). [Emphasis added]
In the in view of the above, it is clear Namiranian’s eSIMs profiles stored int eh data comprises subscriber/user data (e.g. SM-DP, SM-DP+, SM-SR) which are being audited/verified. Namiranian’s FIG. Steps 604, 606, 610, 612, 614, 616 clearly discloses “auditing subscription data stored in the subscription database to generate an auditing result… "based on the auditing result indicating no error in the subscription database, performing the operation” as broadly recited in the claim.
In particular, Namiranian discloses that auditing/verification is performed on profile structured subscription data stored in the centralize database, and based on auditing/verification indicating that the action has passed performing the actions with respect to the profile/subscription in centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104.
Namiranian discloses auditing subscription data stored in the subscription database to generate an auditing result (see FIG. 6, Steps 604, 606, 610, 612, 614, 616; auditing/verification profile/subscription data stored in the centralize database to obtain/generate output/result (i.e. load? or Has access?) see ¶¶ 39,42, 54-57;); and based on the auditing result indicating no error in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Steps 606 (yes=action pass), Step 612 (yes=action pass), Step 616 (yes=action pass); based on auditing/verification indicating that the action has passed), performing the operation in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Step 618; performing the actions with respect to the profile/subscription in centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104); see ¶¶ 56-57).
Thus, it clear that Namiranian still anticipates the broad claim at least for the facts provided, Supra.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., no errors within subscription data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims1. In this case, the claim recites “…no errors in the subscription database..”, not “within subscription data” as erroneously argued by the applicant.
Regarding claim 2, 4, 6 and 10, the applicant argued that, “…Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over a combination of Namiranian and Hara. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Claim 2 ultimately depends from independent claim 1. As discussed above, claim 1 is allowable over Namiranian. The Office cites Hara as allegedly teaching the respective features of dependent claim 2. Without conceding the propriety of the combination of Namiranian and Hara, the combination fails to teach or suggest one or more features of independent claim 1….Claims 4, 6, and 10 each ultimately depend from one of independent claim 1 or 7. As discussed above, claims 1 and 7 are allowable over Namiranian. The Office cites Shah as allegedly teaching the respective features of dependent claims 4, 6, and 10. Without conceding the propriety of the combination of Namiranian and Shah, the combination fails to teach or suggest one or more features of independent claims 1 and 7…” in page 11-12.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims, 1, 7 and 15 are not allowable over anticipated Namiranian as set forth above, the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6 and 10 are sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Namiranian (US 2019 0028881).
Regarding Claim 1, Namiranian discloses a computer device (see FIG. 1-2, ESIM management platform 106; see FIG. 3, computing device components 300), comprising:
a processor (see FIG. 3, Processors 304);
a non-transitory computer-readable memory (see FIG. 3, memory 306) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform actions (see ¶¶ 43,45) including:
receiving, from a client device, (see FIG. 2, receiving from User Device(s) 204(N) entity with ICCID2 of eUICC3/eSIM4; see ¶¶ 2, 17) a request to perform an operation (see ¶¶ 15, 19, 18, 28, 38; a request to perform an provision/operation) in a subscription database (see FIG. 1-2, centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104), the operation being associated with a first subscription (see FIG. 6, Step 602; ¶¶ 19-20; 28-31, 37-40, 53; provision/operation regarding profile/subscription (of specific/first ICCID));
auditing subscription data stored in the subscription database to generate an auditing result (see FIG. 6, Steps 604, 606, 610, 612, 614, 616; auditing/verification profile/subscription data stored in the centralize database to obtain/generate output/result (i.e. load? or Has access?) see ¶¶ 39,42, 54-57;); and
based on the auditing result indicating no error in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Steps 606 (yes=action pass), Step 612 (yes=action pass), Step 616 (yes=action pass); based on auditing/verification indicating that the action has passed), performing the operation in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Step 618; performing the actions with respect to the profile/subscription in centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104); see ¶¶ 56-57).
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, Namiranian discloses a computer device (see FIG. 1-2, ESIM management platform 106; see FIG. 3, computing device components 300), and a computer-implemented method comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable memory (see FIG. 3, memory 306) storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform actions (see ¶¶ 43,45) including:
receiving, from a client device, (see FIG. 2, receiving from User Device(s) 204(N) entity with ICCID5 of eUICC6/eSIM7; see ¶¶ 2, 17) a request to perform an operation (see ¶¶ 15, 19, 18, 28, 38; a request to perform an provision/operation) in a subscription database (see FIG. 1-2, centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104), the operation being associated with a first subscription (see FIG. 6, Step 602; ¶¶ 19-20; 28-31, 37-40, 53; provision/operation regarding profile/subscription (of specific/first ICCID/EID));
obtaining, from an index repository (see FIG. 1-2, finding/obtaining from a combined 112system of subscription management services 104 104 and ESIM profile Vendor 108(N)), a plurality of UIDs (see FIG. 1-2, plurality of EIDs8/ ICCID9) and associated indexes (see FIG. 1, associated/corresponding services/indexes (e.g., SM-DP10 110, SM-DP+11 122, SM-SR12 166)) for a plurality of subscriptions (see FIG. 1, for plurality of profiles/subscriptions (e.g. profile 112(N), profile 112, profile 124, profile 126); see ¶¶ 14, 16-17, 27, 30-33, 36, 38, 41-42; also see FIG. 5, Steps 502-506, see ¶¶ 51-52);
auditing, based on the plurality of UIDs and associated indexes, the subscription database to generate an auditing result (see FIG. 6, Steps 604, 606, 610, 612, 614, 616; auditing/verification, based on EIDs/ICCIDs and its associated/corresponding services/indexes, in the centralize database to obtain/generate output/result (i.e. load? or Has access?) see ¶¶ 33, 28, 39 39,42, 48, 54-57); and
based on the auditing result indicating no error in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Steps 606 (yes=action pass), Step 612 (yes=action pass), Step 616 (yes=action pass); based on auditing/verification indicating that the action has passed), performing the operation with respect to the first subscription in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Step 618; performing the actions regarding specific/first ICCID/EID’s profile/subscription in centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104); see ¶¶ 56-57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiranian in view of Hara (US 2002 0184202).
Regarding Claim 2, Namiranian discloses wherein auditing subscription data stored in the subscription database to generate an auditing result as set for the above. Namiranian further discloses querying indexes (see FIG. 1, retrieving/acquiring subscription services/indexes (e.g., SM-DP13 110, SM-DP+14 122, SM-SR15 166)) stored in a first storage of the subscription database (see FIG. 1-2, stored in a combined 112system of subscription management services 104 104 and ESIM profile Vendor 108(N)) of centralized database 132; see ¶¶ 14, 16-17, 27, 30-33, 36, 38, 41-42; also see FIG. 5, Steps 502-506, see ¶¶ 51-52))
determining whether associated indexes point to a same unique identity (UID) (see FIG. 6, Steps 604, 606, 610, 612, 614, 616; determining/verification, whether EIDs/ICCIDs and its associated/corresponding services/indexes are the same as “loaded?” or “Has access?” stored EIDs/ICCIDs; see ¶¶ 33, 28, 39 39,42, 48, 54-57; and
based on the result not pointing to the same UID, determining that there is an error in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Steps 606 (No=action fail), Step 612 (NO=action fail), Step 616 (yes=action pass); based on auditing/determining as “No” indicate that the action has failed or errored has occurred in the in centralize database 132 with subscription management services 104 ; ¶¶ 56-57).
Although Namiranian discloses querying indexes stored in a first storage of the subscription database; and determining whether associated indexes point to a same unique identity (UID); and based on the result not pointing to the same UID, determining that there is an error in the subscription database a set for the above, Namiranian does not explicitly disclose determining “based on the associated indexes”.
However, Hara teaches a computer device (see FIG. 4, database managing system 1) querying indexes stored in a first storage of the subscription database (see FIG. 4, a combined system of Query analyzer processing module 10 and index managing module 40 queries index 22 stored in database area 2; see ¶¶ 59-61, 65; also see FIG. 9,see ¶¶ 91-92); and
determining whether associated indexes point to a same unique identity (UID) (see FIG. 4, index managing module 40; FIG. 10, Step 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005; Determining whether index entry points to the inserted table data (i.e. unique identification of user data); see ¶¶46-57); see ¶¶ 95-96) ; and
based on the associated indexes not pointing to the same UID, determining that there is an error in the subscription database (see FIG. 10, Step 1005 (No) and 1007; based on the index entry does not exist, thereby, not able to point to the inserted table data (i.e. unique identification of user data), determining as “No” which is an error in the database area 2; see ¶¶ 95-97);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “based on the associated indexes” as taught by Hara in the system of Namiranian , so that it would provide managing data in terms of sets of mutually comparable instances can be realized in a suitable or optimal manner ; see Hara ¶19.
Claims 4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namiranian in view of Shah (US 2023 0093167).
Regarding Claims 4 and 10, Namiranian discloses based on the auditing result indicating an error in the subscription database (see FIG. 6, Steps 606 (No=action fail), Step 612 (no=action fail), Step 616 (no=action fail); based on auditing/verification indicating that the action has passed), sending the auditing result to the client device (see FIG. 6, Step 608, sending the error message to requesting User Device(s) 204(N) entity; see ¶¶ 2, 17 , 56-58).
Although Namiranian discloses based on the auditing result indicating an error in the subscription database, sending the auditing result to the client device as set forth above, Namiranian does not explicitly disclose “causing the client device to correct the error in the subscription database.”
However, Shah teaches a computer device (see FIG. 3A, LwM2M server 304) wherein based on the result in the subscription database (see FIG. 6A, Step 602, based on receiving SIM profile package from MNO server), sending the result to the client device (see FIG. 6A, Step 604, sending the result to LwM2M client; see ¶¶ 146-148), causing the client device to correct the error in the subscription database (see FIG. 6B, Step 658, LwM2M client send integrity check fail to LwM2Mserver to correct failure by updating package (see FIG. 11); see ¶¶ 149-153, 182-186)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “causing the client device to correct the error in the subscription database” as taught by Shah in the system of Namiranian , so that it would provide secure SIM profile package updating with integrity check ; see Shah ¶16.
Regarding Claim 6, Namiranian discloses wherein the auditing result includes at least one of indicating a type of the error (see ¶¶ 54, 57, 58; failure message include a reason for the failure).
Although Namiranian discloses wherein the auditing result includes at least one of indicating a type of the error as set forth above, Namiranian does not explicitly disclose a type of the error being “a pre-defined error code.”
However, Shah teaches the auditing result includes at least one of indicating a type of the error a type of the error being a pre-defined error code (see FIG. 3B, for the failure status IE 362 code 5; see ¶¶ 69, 116, 152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a type of the error being “a pre-defined error code.” as taught by Shah in the system of Namiranian, so that it would provide secure SIM profile package updating with integrity check; see Shah ¶16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 5, 8, 9, 11-14 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Ian N Moore whose telephone number is (571)272-3085. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM - 5:30 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, Deborah J Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
IAN N. MOORE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2 ICCID= Integrated Circuit Card Identifiers
3 eUICC= Embedded Universal Integrated Circuit Card
4 eSIM=Embedded Subscriber Identity Module
5 ICCID= Integrated Circuit Card Identifiers
6 eUICC= Embedded Universal Integrated Circuit Card
7 eSIM=Embedded Subscriber Identity Module
8 EID= eUICC IDs= Embedded Universal Integrated Circuit Card Identifiers
9 ICCID= Integrated Circuit Card Identifiers
10 SM-DP= Subscription Manager Data Preparation Profile
11 SM-DP+ = Subscription Manager Data Preparation Plus Profile
12 SM-SR= Subscription Manager Secure Routing
13 SM-DP= Subscription Manager Data Preparation Profile
14 SM-DP+ = Subscription Manager Data Preparation Plus Profile
15 SM-SR= Subscription Manager Secure Routing
Prosecution Insights