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 .
Detailed Action
1. This action is responsive to the communication filed on 6/24/2026.
Claim Status
2. Claims 1, 7-9, and 15 have currently been amended.
Response to Arguments
3. The applicant’s arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been taken into consideration, but are moot in view of new ground of rejection.
A. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in light of the terminal disclaimer that was approved on 7/1/2026.
B. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed on pg. 2 of the remarks segment) that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest providing, by the network device and to the UE, the UPU, wherein providing the UPU to the UE causes the UE to detach from the network after utilizing the UPU based on the UPU including an instruction that instructs the UE to detach after utilizing the UPU:
In light of the amended clam limitation, see newly cited prior art reference De Kievit et al (US 2021/0409942), which discloses (par [0089], lines 4-8 of the reference) a parameter update and detach message being transmitted to the UE, resulting in the UE being detached from the network (e.g., wherein providing the UPU to the UE causes the UE to detach from the network after utilizing the UPU based on the UPU including an instruction that instructs the UE to detach after utilizing the UPU).
C. In response to the applicant’s argument (disclosed on pg. 2 of the remarks segment) that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE:
In light of the amended clam limitation, see newly cited prior art reference Patil et al (US 2021/0153009), which discloses (fig. 1F & Abstract, lines 7-17 of the reference) a network device receiving a USIM parameter update response from a UE, while the US is still connected to the same communication network (e.g., wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over De Kievit et al (US 2021/0409942) in view of LY et al (US 2022/0240213), further in view of Patil et al (US 2021/0153009).
Regarding claim 1, De Kievit et al teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a network device, a request for authentication data (par [0090], lines 1-3, “authentication request message”), for a user equipment (UE) to register with a network (par [0081], lines 7-8, “registration of the UE”), and an indication that a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) associated with the UE is unencrypted (par [0090], lines 5-7, “decrypt the SUCI and send the SUPI back to the UDM”); and
providing, by the network device and to the UE, the UPU (par [0065], which discloses providing a parameter update message to a UE),
wherein providing the UPU to the UE causes the UE to detach from the network after utilizing the UPU based on the UPU including an instruction that instructs the UE to detach after utilizing the UPU (par [0089], lines 4-8, which discloses the parameter update and detach message being transmitted to the UE, resulting in the UE being detached from the network).
De Kievit et al does not explicitly teach providing, by the network device, to a data store, and based on the indication, a notification for the data store to push a UE parameters update (UPU); and receiving, by the network device and based on the notification, the UPU from the data store based on a registration process being completed using the authentication data.
However, LY et al teaches providing, by the network device, to a data store, and based on the indication, a notification for the data store to push a UE parameters update (UPU) (par [0434], lines 15-20, which discloses notifying a UE of policy updates, which may include periodic registration updates); and
receiving, by the network device and based on the notification, the UPU from the data store based on a registration process being completed using the authentication data (par [0359], Step 1216, lines 30-37, which discloses UE status being updated according to the ‘registered’ status being set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of LY et al within the disclosure of Li et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving UE SIM operations by allowing network components to have knowledge of UE capability to adjust functionality of each UE to ensure that each UE has full communication functionality (as disclosed in par [0445], lines 1-10 of LY et al).
De Kievit et al and LY et al do not explicitly teach wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE.
However, Patil et al further teaches wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE (fig. 1F & Abstract, lines 7-17, which disclose a network device receiving a USIM parameter update response from a UE, while the US is still connected to the same communication network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Patil et al within the disclosure of De Kievit et al and LY et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving user equipment updated parameter verification by implementing a SIM over-the-air device to further verify authenticity of a USIM being updated, upon an intermediate user equipment transmitting an encrypted parameter to the SIM OTA, transmitted from a connected USIM (as disclosed in fig. 1F & par [0009], lines 1-10 of Patil et al) because this feature ensures successful updating of UE parameters on the USIM by not permitting verification of the USIM parameter update until the SIM OTA validates an encrypted UE parameter update response.
Regarding claim 2, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 1.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the data store is provided by a unified data repository associated with the network device (par [0042], line 30, “UDR”).
Regarding claim 3, De Kievit et al further teaches requesting, by the network device and from the data store, the authentication data for the UE based on the request for the authentication data (par [0090-0091]).
De Kievit et al and Ly et al do not explicitly teach receiving, by the network device, the authentication data from the data store based on requesting the authentication data from the data store.
However, Patil et al further teaches receiving, by the network device, the authentication data from the data store based on requesting the authentication data from the data store (par [0021], lines 1-6, “received address associated with the encrypted UE parameter update response matches the stored address associated with the USIM”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Patil et al within the disclosure of De Kievit et al and LY et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Li et al does not explicitly teach completing, by the network device, the registration process for the UE based on receiving the authentication data.
However, LY et al teaches completing, by the network device, the registration process for the UE based on receiving the authentication data (par [0328], step S909, lines 10-15, “SIM1 has been authenticated and registered”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of LY et al within the disclosure of Li et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Li et al does not explicitly teach wherein the notification for the data store to push the UPU indicates for the data store to push the UPU based on the registration process being complete.
However, LY et al teaches wherein the notification for the data store to push the UPU indicates for the data store to push the UPU based on the registration process being complete (par [0359], step S1216, lines 10-15, which discloses communicating the updated status upon completion of the registration procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of LY et al within the disclosure of Li et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 1.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the UPU includes one or more of:
a home network identifier for the UE,
a protection scheme for the UE, or
a home network public key identifier for the UE (par [0009], lines 4-5, “home network public key identifier”).
Regarding claim 7, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 1.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the UE is configured to update the universal subscriber identity module of the UE based on the UPU so that the UE generates the encrypted SUCI (par [0066], line 6, “SUCI that is encrypted”).
Regarding claim 8, De Kievit et al teaches a network device (par [0013], lines 1-2), comprising:
one or more processors (par [0013], lines 1-3) configured to:
receive a request for authentication data (par [0090], lines 1-3, “authentication request message”), for a user equipment (UE) to register with a network (par [0081], lines 7-8, “registration of the UE”), and an indication that a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) associated with the UE is unencrypted (par [0090], lines 5-7, “decrypt the SUCI and send the SUPI back to the UDM”); and
provide the UPU to the UE (par [0065], which discloses providing a parameter update message to a UE),
wherein providing the UPU to the UE causes the UE to detach from the network after utilizing the UPU based on the UPU including an instruction that instructs the UE to detach after utilizing the UPU (par [0089], lines 4-8, which discloses the parameter update and detach message being transmitted to the UE, resulting in the UE being detached from the network).
De Kievit et al does not explicitly teach providing to a data store, and based on the indication, a notification for the data store to push a UE parameters update (UPU); and receiving, based on the notification, the UPU from the data store based on a registration process being completed using the authentication data.
However, LY et al teaches providing to a data store, and based on the indication, a notification for the data store to push a UE parameters update (UPU) (par [0434], lines 15-20, which discloses notifying a UE of policy updates, which may include periodic registration updates); and
receiving, based on the notification, the UPU from the data store based on a registration process being completed using the authentication data (par [0359], Step 1216, lines 30-37, which discloses UE status being updated according to the ‘registered’ status being set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of LY et al within the disclosure of Li et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving UE SIM operations by allowing network components to have knowledge of UE capability to adjust functionality of each UE to ensure that each UE has full communication functionality (as disclosed in par [0445], lines 1-10 of LY et al).
De Kievit et al and LY et al do not explicitly teach wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE.
However, Patil et al further teaches wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE (fig. 1F & Abstract, lines 7-17, which disclose a network device receiving a USIM parameter update response from a UE, while the US is still connected to the same communication network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Patil et al within the disclosure of De Kievit et al and LY et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving user equipment updated parameter verification by implementing a SIM over-the-air device to further verify authenticity of a USIM being updated, upon an intermediate user equipment transmitting an encrypted parameter to the SIM OTA, transmitted from a connected USIM (as disclosed in fig. 1F & par [0009], lines 1-10 of Patil et al) because this feature ensures successful updating of UE parameters on the USIM by not permitting verification of the USIM parameter update until the SIM OTA validates an encrypted UE parameter update response.
Regarding claim 9, De Kievit et al does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
instruct, based on the acknowledgment, the data store to prevent future UPUs for the UE.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
instruct, based on the acknowledgment, the data store to prevent future UPUs for the UE (par [0070], lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 10, De Kievit et al and LY et al do not explicitly teach wherein the network device is a unified data management device.
However, Patil et al teaches wherein the network device is a unified data management device (par [0007], lines 2-5, “unified data management device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Patil et al within the disclosure of De Kievit et al and LY et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 8.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide the authentication data to one or more other network devices configured to cause the registration process for the UE to be completed (par [0081], lines 10-11, “registration procedure of the UE has completed”).
Regarding claim 12, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 8.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the encrypted SUCI includes data identifying one or more of:
a SUCI type, a
home network identifier for the UE,
a routing indicator for the UE, a protection scheme for the UE,
a home network public key identifier for the UE (par [0009], lines 4-5, “home network public key identifier”),
a protection scheme output for the UE, or
a concealed subscription permanent identifier associated with the UE.
Regarding claim 13, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 8.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the SUCI type includes an international mobile subscriber identity for the UE or a network access identifier for the UE (par [0041], line 10, “network access identifier”).
Regarding claim 14, De Kievit et al teaches completing the registration process for the UE based on receiving the authentication data (par [0081], lines 10-11, “after registration procedure of the UE has completed”).
De Kievit et al and Ly et al do not explicitly teach receiving the authentication data from the data store based on requesting the authentication data from the data store.
However, Patil et al further teaches receiving the authentication data from the data store based on requesting the authentication data from the data store (par [0021], lines 1-6, “received address associated with the encrypted UE parameter update response matches the stored address associated with the USIM”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Patil et al within the disclosure of De Kievit et al and LY et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 8.
Regarding claim 15, De Kievit et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (fig. 13, ‘15), the set of instructions, comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a network device (Abstract), cause the network device to:
receive a request for authentication data (par [0090], lines 1-3, “authentication request message”), for a user equipment (UE) to register with a network (par [0081], lines 7-8, “registration of the UE”), and an indication that a subscription concealed identifier (SUCI) associated with the UE is unencrypted (par [0090], lines 5-7, “decrypt the SUCI and send the SUPI back to the UDM”); and
provide the UPU to the UE (par [0065], which discloses providing a parameter update message to a UE),
wherein providing the UPU to the UE causes the UE to detach from the network after utilizing the UPU based on the UPU including an instruction that instructs the UE to detach after utilizing the UPU (par [0089], lines 4-8, which discloses the parameter update and detach message being transmitted to the UE, resulting in the UE being detached from the network).
De Kievit et al does not explicitly teach providing to a data store, and based on the indication, a notification for the data store to push a UE parameters update (UPU); and receiving, based on the notification, the UPU from the data store based on a registration process being completed using the authentication data.
However, LY et al teaches providing to a data store, and based on the indication, a notification for the data store to push a UE parameters update (UPU) (par [0434], lines 15-20, which discloses notifying a UE of policy updates, which may include periodic registration updates); and
receiving, based on the notification, the UPU from the data store based on a registration process being completed using the authentication data (par [0359], Step 1216, lines 30-37, which discloses UE status being updated according to the ‘registered’ status being set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of LY et al within the disclosure of Li et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving UE SIM operations by allowing network components to have knowledge of UE capability to adjust functionality of each UE to ensure that each UE has full communication functionality (as disclosed in par [0445], lines 1-10 of LY et al).
De Kievit et al and LY et al do not explicitly teach wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE.
However, Patil et al further teaches wherein the network device receives, from the UE and prior to the UE detaching from the network, an acknowledgement that the UPU updated a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) of the UE (fig. 1F & Abstract, lines 7-17, which disclose a network device receiving a USIM parameter update response from a UE, while the US is still connected to the same communication network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Patil et al within the disclosure of De Kievit et al and LY et al in order to provide the predictive result of improving user equipment updated parameter verification by implementing a SIM over-the-air device to further verify authenticity of a USIM being updated, upon an intermediate user equipment transmitting an encrypted parameter to the SIM OTA, transmitted from a connected USIM (as disclosed in fig. 1F & par [0009], lines 1-10 of Patil et al) because this feature ensures successful updating of UE parameters on the USIM by not permitting verification of the USIM parameter update until the SIM OTA validates an encrypted UE parameter update response.
Regarding claim 16, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 15.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the UE generates the encrypted SUCI based on the updated universal subscriber identity module (par [0066], lines 6-7, “SUCI that is encrypted”).
Regarding claim 17, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 15.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the one or more instructions further cause the network device to:
receive, from another network device, a request for access and mobility subscription data for the UE (par [0048], lines 7-12);
receive the access and mobility subscription data from the data store based on requesting the access and mobility subscription data from the data store (par [0045]); and
provide the access and mobility subscription data to the other network device (par [0046], lines 2-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of LY et al within the disclosure of Li et al according to the motivation disclosed regarding claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 15.
Li et al further teaches wherein the data store is provided by a unified data repository (par [0042], line 30, “Unified Data Repository”).
Regarding claim 19, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 15.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the UPU includes:
a home network identifier for the UE,
a protection scheme for the UE, and
a home network public key identifier for the UE (par [0009], lines 4-5, “home network public key identifier”).
Regarding claim 20, De Kievit et al, LY et al, and Patil teach the limitations of claim 15.
De Kievit et al further teaches wherein the one or more instructions further cause the network device to:
indicate for the data store to prevent future UPUs for the UE based on providing the UPU to the UE based on the UE connecting to the network using the encrypted SUCI (par [0070], lines 1-6).
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 Randy A. Scott whose telephone number is (571) 272-3797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am-5:00 pm, second Fridays 7:30 am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Luu Pham can be reached on (571) 270-5002. 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.
/RANDY A SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439 20260709
Prosecution Insights