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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
Regarding claims 1-9:
The Office Action relies on Anklesaria's step 3101 [0032] for the "authenticating" limitation; however, Anklesaria's step 310 describes profiler 200 "authenticat[ing] the generated eSIM profile," and explains that the authentication/verification can be based on account information and that it can correspond to "determining that an active and good-standing account currently exists according to a subscription plan." This is an account/profile validity check (i.e., verification of the provisioned account/eSIM profile for download), not an authentication of the identity of a subscriber who is currently using a device- particularly where that subscriber is unassociated with that device.
Claim 1 does not merely recite "authenticate something" prior to downloading an eSIM. Rather, it requires authenticating an identity of a subscriber who is using the communications device and further requires that the subscriber is "unassociated with the communications device." Anklesaria does not disclose, describe, or contemplate the claimed scenario where a subscriber's identity is authenticated in order to place that subscriber's service onto a device that is not associated with that subscriber. Instead, Anklesaria's framework is directed to provisioning/activation and re-provisioning/reinstallation of an eSIM profile to a user device in connection with an existing plan/account for that device/user (e.g., after deletion, factory reset, or device upgrade). In that context, the "authentication" of step 310 is directed to the existence/status of the account and the eSIM profile to be communicated and downloaded, not to the identity of an unassociated subscriber using a different device.
Further, the Office Action's finding that Anklesaria discloses (or renders obvious) "the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device" is unsupported. The Examiner cites Anklesaria 1 [0018] for the proposition that UE 102 "can be any type of known or to be known computing device," and then concludes that "since the UE 102 can be any type of device, the examiner interprets UE is unassociated with the subscriber." The cited passage addresses only categories and examples of UE device types and capabilities; it does not address whether the user/subscriber is associated with the UE, whether the UE is provisioned to that subscriber's account, or whether the UE is a third-party/borrowed device. A generic disclosure that UE 102 may be "any type" of device is not a teaching that the subscriber is unassociated with the device, nor is it a sufficient factual basis to supply this missing relationship limitation by "interpretation."
Finally, the Office Action's rationale that it would be "desirable" to have an unassociated subscriber for "flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device" does not cure the above deficiencies. The rejection does not identify any teaching or suggestion in Anklesaria to authenticate the identity of a subscriber who is using a device that is unassociated with that subscriber as a prerequisite to downloading that subscriber's eSIM onto the device. Nor does the rejection explain why a skilled artisan would have modified Anklesaria's account/profile authentication mechanism into subscriber-identity authentication for use on an unassociated device. Therefore, Anklesaria does not teach or suggest the limitations discussed above, and the Office has not provided a sufficient evidentiary or analytical basis to support the rejection as applied to these limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-9, which depend therefrom.
Regarding claims 10-17:
The obviousness rejection of claim 10 is erroneous at least because Anklesaria fails to teach or suggest the limitations of authenticating an identity of a subscriber who is using a device to seek wireless services on a communications network, wherein the subscriber is unassociated with the device, and responsive to successfully authenticating the identity, downloading an electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) onto the device.
In particular, the Office Action relies on Anklesaria's step 3101 [0032] for the "authenticating" limitation; however, Anklesaria's step 310 describes profiler 200 "authenticat[ing] the generated eSIM profile," and explains that the authentication/verification can be based on account information and can correspond to "determining that an active and good-standing account currently exists according to a subscription plan." This is an account/profile validity check (i.e., verification of the provisioned account/eSIM profile for download), not an authentication of the identity of a subscriber who is currently using a device to seek wireless services-particularly where that subscriber is unassociated with that device.
Claim 10 does not merely recite "authenticate something" prior to downloading an eSIM. Rather, claim 10 requires authenticating an identity of a subscriber who is using a device to seek wireless services and further requires that the subscriber is "unassociated with the device." Anklesaria does not disclose, describe, or contemplate the claimed scenario where a subscriber's identity is authenticated in order to place that subscriber's service onto a device that is not associated with that subscriber. Instead, Anklesaria's framework is directed to provisioning/activation and re-provisioning/reinstallation of an eSIM profile to a user device in connection with an existing plan/account for that device/user (e.g., after deletion, factory reset, or device upgrade). In that context, the "authentication" of step 310 is directed to the existence/status of the account and the eSIM profile to be communicated and downloaded, not to the identity of an unassociated subscriber using a different device.
Further, the Office Action's finding that Anklesaria discloses (or renders obvious) "the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device" is unsupported as applied to claim 10's "unassociated with the device" limitation. The Examiner cites Anklesaria 1 [0018] for the proposition that UE 102 "can be any type of known or to be known computing device," and then concludes that "since the UE 102 can be any type of device, the examiner interprets UE is unassociated with the subscriber." The cited passage addresses only categories and examples of UE device types and capabilities; it does not address whether the user/subscriber is associated with the UE, whether the UE is provisioned to that subscriber's account, or whether the UE is a third-party/borrowed device. A generic disclosure that UE 102 may be "any type" of device is Page 8 of 12
not a teaching that the subscriber is unassociated with the device, nor is it a sufficient factual basis to supply this missing relationship limitation by "interpretation."
Finally, the Office Action's rationale that it would be "desirable" to have an unassociated subscriber for "flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device" does not cure the above deficiencies. The rejection does not identify any teaching or suggestion in Anklesaria to authenticate the identity of a subscriber who is using a device that is unassociated with that subscriber as a prerequisite to downloading that subscriber's eSIM onto the device. Nor does the rejection explain why a skilled artisan would have modified Anklesaria's account/profile authentication mechanism into subscriber-identity authentication for use on an unassociated device. Therefore, Anklesaria does not teach or suggest the limitations discussed above, and the Office has not provided a sufficient evidentiary or analytical basis to support the rejection as applied to these limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 10, and claims 11-17, which depend therefrom.
Regarding claims 18-20:
The obviousness rejection of claim 18 is erroneous at least because Anklesaria fails to teach or suggest the limitations of verifying an identity of a subscriber who is using a device for wireless services on a communications network, wherein the subscriber is unassociated with the device, and responsive to successfully verifying the identity, downloading, by the processing system, an electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) of the subscriber onto the device.
In particular, the Office Action relies on Anklesaria's Step 310 [0032] for the
"verifying" limitation; however, Anklesaria's step 310 describes profiler 200 "authenticat[ing] the generated eSIM profile," and explains that the authentication/verification can be based on account information and can correspond to "determining that an active and good-standing account currently exists according to a subscription plan." This is an account/profile validity check (i.e., verification of the provisioned account/eSIM profile for download), not a verification of the identity of a subscriber who is currently using a device for wireless services-particularly where that subscriber is unassociated with that device.
Claim 18 does not merely recite "verify something" prior to downloading an eSIM.
Rather, claim 18 requires verifying an identity of a subscriber who is using a device for wireless
services and further requires that the subscriber is "unassociated with the device." Anklesaria does not disclose, describe, or contemplate the claimed scenario where a subscriber's identity is verified in order to place that subscriber's wireless service onto a device that is not associated with that subscriber. Instead, Anklesaria's framework is directed to provisioning/activation and re-provisioning/reinstallation of an eSIM profile to a user device in connection with an existing plan/account for that device/user (e.g., after deletion, factory reset, or device upgrade). In that context, the "authentication" of step 310 is directed to the existence/status of the account and the eSIM profile to be communicated and downloaded, not to verifying the identity of an unassociated subscriber using a different device.
Further, the Office Action's finding that Anklesaria discloses (or renders obvious) "the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device" is unsupported as applied to claim 18's "unassociated with the device" limitation. The Examiner cites Anklesaria [0018] for the proposition that UE 102 "can be any type of known or to be known computing device," and then concludes that "since the UE 102 can be any type of device, the examiner interprets UE is unassociated with the subscriber." The cited passage addresses only categories and examples of UE device types and capabilities; it does not address whether the user/subscriber is associated with the UE, whether the UE is provisioned to that subscriber's account, or whether the UE is a third-party/borrowed device. A generic disclosure that UE 102 may be "any type" of device is not a teaching that the subscriber is unassociated with the device, nor is it a sufficient factual basis to supply this missing relationship limitation by "interpretation."
Finally, the Office Action's rationale that it would be "desirable" to have an unassociated subscriber for "flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device" does not cure the above deficiencies. The rejection does not identify any teaching or suggestion in Anklesaria to verify the identity of a subscriber who is using a device that is unassociated with that subscriber as a prerequisite to downloading that subscriber's eSIM onto the device. Nor does the rejection explain why a skilled artisan would have modified Anklesaria's account/profile authentication mechanism into subscriber-identity verification for use on an unassociated device. Therefore, Anklesaria does not teach or suggest the limitations discussed above, and the Office has not provided a sufficient evidentiary or analytical basis to support the rejection as applied to these limitations.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 18, and claims 19-20, which depend therefrom.
Examiner’s response:
Regarding claims 1-9:
Anklesaria et al. (US 2024/0276201 A1) discloses a system and method for restoring an eSIM profile, paragraph 0015 discloses that one need to authenticate the user’s identity to reserve a new eSIM, paragraph 0016 further describes an automatic authentication of the user’s account for a new profile (new account for the device), paragraph 0032 describes that a profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s)
Based on the above recitation, Anklesaria disclose the identity of the user needs to be authenticated before the eSIM profile to be transferred to the user equipment, and since paragraph 0032 recites that the transferred eSIM profile can be a new eSIM profile, therefore the user equipment that receive the new eSIM profile can be any a new user equipment that has no previous association with the user, thus satisfied the claimed limitation, and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding claims 10-17:
According to the explanation of rejection of claims 1-9, Anklesaria et al. (US 2024/0276201 A1) discloses the claimed limitation of claims 10-17, therefore, the rejection of claims 10-17 are maintained.
Regarding claims 18-20:
According to the explanation of rejection of claims 1-9, Anklesaria et al. (US 2024/0276201 A1) discloses the claimed limitation of claims 10-17, therefore, the rejection of claims 10-17 are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anklesaria et al. (US 2024/0276201 A1).
(1) Regarding claim 1:
Anklesaria discloses a device (client device as shown in figure 5), comprising:
a processing system including a processor (processing unit 522 as shown in figure 5, para. 0046); and
a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system (mass memory 530 in figure 5, para. 0051, mass memory also store operating system 540 for controlling the operation of client device 500, Memory 530 further includes one or more data stores, which can be utilized by client device 500 to store, among other things, applications 542 and/or other information or data, Applications 542 may include computer executable instructions which, when executed by client device 50, para. 0052-0053), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
authenticating an identity of a subscriber who is using a communications device over a communications network (In Step 310, profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s). For example, such authentication can correspond to determining that an active and good-standing account currently exists according to a subscription plan provided by a network provider, para. 0032);
responsive to successfully authenticating the identity, downloading an electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) onto the communications device (In Step 312, upon authentication and download of the eSIM profile in Step 310, the eSIM profile can be initiated and installed in the device, para. 0033);
resetting the communications device to reestablish a connection with the communications network using the eSIM (the initialization can involve customization, selection and/or application of carrier settings which enables the device to connect to the network (e.g., network 110) via the line of service assigned to the eSIM profile, para. 0033); and
providing wireless services to the subscriber via the communications device (Step 312 enables the activation of the device according to the specific cellular plan, which enables cellular and/or data communications/activities to be performed via the device, para. 0033).
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claim 1 except explicitly discloses the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device.
However, Anklesaria discloses a system and method for restoring an eSIM profile, paragraph 0015 discloses that one need to authenticate the user’s identity to reserve a new eSIM, paragraph 0016 further describes an automatic authentication of the user’s account for a new profile (new account for the device), paragraph 0032 describes that a profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s). Based on the above recitation, Anklesaria disclose the identity of the user needs to be authenticated before the eSIM profile to be transferred to the user equipment, and since paragraph 0032 recites that the transferred eSIM profile can be a new eSIM profile, therefore the user equipment that receive the new eSIM profile can be any a new user equipment that has no previous association with the user, thus satisfied the claimed limitation of the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device, and UE 102 can be any type of known or to be known computing device capable of communicating with and/or accessing network 110, para. 0018; since the UE 102 can be any type of device, the examiner interprets UE is unassociated with the subscriber.
It is desirable to have the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device because it improves the flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device for the benefit of improving the flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device.
(2) Regarding claim 10:
Anklesaria discloses a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processing system including a processor (mass memory 530 in figure 5, para. 0051, mass memory also store operating system 540 for controlling the operation of client device 500, Memory 530 further includes one or more data stores, which can be utilized by client device 500 to store, among other things, applications 542 and/or other information or data, Applications 542 may include computer executable instructions which, when executed by client device 50, para. 0052-0053), facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:
authenticating an identity of a subscriber who is using a device to seek wireless services on a communications network (In Step 310, profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s). For example, such authentication can correspond to determining that an active and good-standing account currently exists according to a subscription plan provided by a network provider, para. 0032);
responsive to successfully authenticating the identity, downloading an electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) onto the device (In Step 312, upon authentication and download of the eSIM profile in Step 310, the eSIM profile can be initiated and installed in the device, para. 0033);
resetting the device to establish a connection with the communications network using the eSIM (the initialization can involve customization, selection and/or application of carrier settings which enables the device to connect to the network (e.g., network 110) via the line of service assigned to the eSIM profile, para. 0033); and
providing the wireless services to the device (Step 312 enables the activation of the device according to the specific cellular plan, which enables cellular and/or data communications/activities to be performed via the device, para. 0033).
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claim 10 except explicitly discloses the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device.
However, However, Anklesaria discloses a system and method for restoring an eSIM profile, paragraph 0015 discloses that one need to authenticate the user’s identity to reserve a new eSIM, paragraph 0016 further describes an automatic authentication of the user’s account for a new profile (new account for the device), paragraph 0032 describes that a profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s). Based on the above recitation, Anklesaria disclose the identity of the user needs to be authenticated before the eSIM profile to be transferred to the user equipment, and since paragraph 0032 recites that the transferred eSIM profile can be a new eSIM profile, therefore the user equipment that receive the new eSIM profile can be any a new user equipment that has no previous association with the user, thus satisfied the claimed limitation of the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device, and UE 102 can be any type of known or to be known computing device capable of communicating with and/or accessing network 110, para. 0018; since the UE 102 can be any type of device, the examiner interprets UE is unassociated with the subscriber.
It is desirable to have the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device because it improves the flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device for the benefit of improving the flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device.
(3) Regarding claim 18:
Anklesaria discloses a method, comprising:
verifying, by a processing system comprising a processor, an identity of a subscriber who is using a device for wireless services on a communications network (In Step 310, profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s). For example, such authentication can correspond to determining that an active and good-standing account currently exists according to a subscription plan provided by a network provider, para. 0032);
responsive to successfully verifying the identity, downloading, by the processing system, an electronic subscriber identity module (eSIM) of the subscriber onto the device (In Step 312, upon authentication and download of the eSIM profile in Step 310, the eSIM profile can be initiated and installed in the device, para. 0033);
resetting the device to establish a connection with the communications network using the eSIM (the initialization can involve customization, selection and/or application of carrier settings which enables the device to connect to the network (e.g., network 110) via the line of service assigned to the eSIM profile, para. 0033); and
providing the wireless services to the subscriber (Step 312 enables the activation of the device according to the specific cellular plan, which enables cellular and/or data communications/activities to be performed via the device, para. 0033).
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claim 10 except explicitly discloses the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device.
However, However, Anklesaria discloses a system and method for restoring an eSIM profile, paragraph 0015 discloses that one need to authenticate the user’s identity to reserve a new eSIM, paragraph 0016 further describes an automatic authentication of the user’s account for a new profile (new account for the device), paragraph 0032 describes that a profiler 200 can authenticate the generated eSIM profile, which then causes the eSIM profile to be communicated to the user device and downloaded thereon. In some embodiments, Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile (e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, as well as the carrier plan and specific cellular and data usage criteria/settings associated with such plan(s). Based on the above recitation, Anklesaria disclose the identity of the user needs to be authenticated before the eSIM profile to be transferred to the user equipment, and since paragraph 0032 recites that the transferred eSIM profile can be a new eSIM profile, therefore the user equipment that receive the new eSIM profile can be any a new user equipment that has no previous association with the user, thus satisfied the claimed limitation of the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device, and UE 102 can be any type of known or to be known computing device capable of communicating with and/or accessing network 110, para. 0018; since the UE 102 can be any type of device, the examiner interprets UE is unassociated with the subscriber.
It is desirable to have the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device because it improves the flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the subscriber is unassociated with the communication device for the benefit of improving the flexibility of installing eSIM and communication plan to any user device.
(4) Regarding claims 2, 11, and 19:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 1, 10, and 18, and further discloses the wireless services comprise voice calls, text messaging and data (Step 312 enables the activation of the device according to the specific cellular plan, which enables cellular and/or data communications/activities to be performed via the device, para. 0033; the account can specify a cellular usage rate/amount, data usage threshold/limit, and the like, para. 0027; the examiner interprets data communication comprises text message and data).
(5) Regarding claims 3 and 12:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses the eSIM includes parameters comprising a telephone number for the subscriber, personal log in methods, usage limitation, callee whitelists, or a combination thereof (The generated eSIM includes (e.g., is assigned) the mobile number generated in Step 304, para, 0029).
(6) Regarding claims 4 and 13:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses the operations further comprise terminating the wireless services (In some embodiments, as discussed above, the eSIM profile may be deleted from a user device in situations where a user is upgrading their device (e.g., changing devices), para. 0044; the examiner interprets deleting the eSIM profile as termination of the wireless service).
(7) Regarding claim 20:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claim 18, and further discloses terminating, by the processing system, the wireless services; and erasing, by the processing system, the eSIM responsive to terminating the wireless services (In some embodiments, as discussed above, the eSIM profile may be deleted from a user device in situations where a user is upgrading their device (e.g., changing devices), para. 0044; the examiner interprets deleting the eSIM profile as termination and erasing of the wireless service).
(8) Regarding claims 5 and 14:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 4 and 13, and further discloses the operations further comprise erasing the eSIM responsive to terminating the wireless services (In some embodiments, as discussed above, the eSIM profile may be deleted from a user device in situations where a user is upgrading their device (e.g., changing devices), para. 0044; the examiner interprets deleting the eSIM profile as termination of the wireless service).
(9) Regarding claims 6 and 15:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses the device downloads the eSIM over a secure cellular wireless network connection (SM-SR device 106 can be in communication with the MNO access network 104, and can securely route communication to/from UE 102 to the SM-DP device 108, para. 0020; the network 110 may include a plurality of base stations (e.g., eNodeB (eNB), gNodeB (gNB)) communicatively connected to UE 102 via an air interface. In some embodiments, the air interface comprises a New Radio (NR) air interface).
(10) Regarding claims 7 and 16:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses the device downloads the eSIM via a Wi-Fi connection (activation can involve downloading the eSIM profile to the device. This can be enabled via a network connection (e.g., WiFi connection to the Internet, for example), where the carrier's discovery servers can provide the eSIM profile for download, as discussed below, para. 0011).
(12) Regarding claims 8 and 17:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claims 1 and 10, and further discloses the authenticating comprises providing a username and password combination, a biometric identification, a one-time passcode, or a combination thereof (As discussed in more detail below, the disclosed framework can enable automatic authentication of the user's account, para. 0016; Step 310 can involve the eSIM profile ( e.g., provisioned account) being authenticated and verified, which can be based on account information of the user and/or device, para. 0032; it is obvious the process of authenticating a user account would need a user name and password combination as evidence by George et al. (US 12,576,000 B2), col. 19, lines 50-55).
(13) Regarding claim 9:
Anklesaria discloses all subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses the processing system (system as shown in figure 1 comprises a network 110, which includes, but is not limited to, MNO access network 104, subscription management secure routing (SM-SR) device 106, subscription management discovery (SM-DP) device 108, and eSIM Profiler 200, para. 0017-0023) comprises a plurality of processors operating in a distributed computing environment (In other words, functional elements being performed by single or multiple components, in various combinations of hardware and software or firmware, and individual functions, may be distributed among software applications at either the client level or server level or both, para. 0056-0057).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moudhgalya et al. (US 12,574,738 B2) discloses embedded subscriber identity module non-fungible token system.
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 SIU M LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1083. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 8:30-7:00.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/SIU M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights