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 .
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chauhan et al. (US 11129026 B1, hereinafter Chauhan)
Regarding Claim 1, Chauhan teaches
A computing device, comprising: one or more processors configured to:
(Chauhan [Column 8, line 26-31] FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing various components of one or more illustrative computing devices of an eSIM management platform that initiates a carrier switchover. The computing devices 300 may include a communication interface 302, one or more processors 304, memory 306, and hardware 308.
detect that a temporary eSIM profile should be loaded into an eUICC of the computing device;
[Col. 3, line 60-63] The eSIM management platform receive a profile change request from an entity. The profile change request may request a change for a single eSIM profile.)
determine a location of the computing device;
(Chauhan [Col. 10, line 60-61] data comprising one or more of a geographic location of the mobile device.)
identify the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC of the computing device based on the location of the computing device;
(Chauhan [Col. 11 and line 1-3] the unique identification data may be one of a MSISDN, IMEI, or EID. Additionally, the token may include a location of a SM-DP+.)
load the temporary eSIM profile into the eUICC for the computing device;
(Chauhan [Col. 3, line 46-49] The eSIM management platform may be configured to enable the entities to manage the deployment of eSIM profiles into eUICCs of prospective devices.)
and place a call to a particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile while the temporary eSIM profile is stored within the eUICC of the computing device.
(Chauhan [Col. 4, line 6-9] the eSIM management platform may send a profile change request to the subscription management service by calling an application program interface (API) of the subscription management service.)
Regarding Claim 3 and as applied to Claim 1, Chauhan further teaches
temporary eSIM profile should be loaded into the eUICC of the computing device in response to detection that an end user of the computing device has initiated the call to the particular phone number.
(Chauhan [Col. 7, line 38-42] The eSIM management platform 116 may include an application program interface (API) abstraction layer that provides multiple APIs to the various entities, in which the entities may call the APIs to initiate profile management tasks for the eSIM profiles.)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali)
Regarding Claim 8, Hampali teaches
A system, comprising: one or more processors configured to: detect that a call to a particular phone number has been initiated;
(Hampali [0013, line 4-8] receive the incoming call from a first electronic device directed to a second electronic device on a first MSISDN number of a first eSIM profile among the plurality of eSIM profiles in the second electronic device.)
identify a temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into an eUICC based on the particular phone number in response to detection that the call to the particular phone number has been initiated;
(Hampali [0015, line 4-9] receive an eSIM profile from the electronic device, wherein the eSIM profile corresponds to a MSISDN number; associate the eSIM profile with the MSISDN number by using an eUICC key associated with the eSIM profile; and register the MSISDN number at the server through an OTP authentication mechanism.)
load the temporary eSIM profile into the eUICC;
(Hampali [0015, line 6-7] associate the eSIM profile with the MSISDN number by using an eUICC key associated with the eSIM profile.)
place a call to the particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile while the temporary eSIM profile is stored within the eUICC.
(Hampali [0015 line 8-9] and register the MSISDN number at the server through an OTP authentication mechanism.)
Regarding Claim 15, Hampali teaches
A method, comprising: detecting that a call to a particular phone number has been initiated using an electronic device;
(Hampali [0013, line 4-8] receive the incoming call from a first electronic device directed to a second electronic device on a first MSISDN number of a first eSIM profile among the plurality of eSIM profiles in the second electronic device.)
identifying a temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into an eUICC of the electronic device based on the particular phone number in response to detecting that the call to the particular phone number has been initiated;
(Hampali [0015, line 4-9] receive an eSIM profile from the electronic device, wherein the eSIM profile corresponds to a MSISDN number; associate the eSIM profile with the MSISDN number by using an eUICC key associated with the eSIM profile; and register the MSISDN number at the server through an OTP authentication mechanism.)
loading the temporary eSIM profile into the eUICC of the electronic device;
(Hampali [0015, line 6-7] associate the eSIM profile with the MSISDN number by using an eUICC key associated with the eSIM profile.)
placing a call to the particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile while the temporary eSIM profile is stored within the eUICC of the electronic device.
(Hampali [0015 line 8-9] and register the MSISDN number at the server through an OTP authentication mechanism.)
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.
Claims 2, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (US 11129026 B1, hereinafter Chauhan) in view of Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali)
Regarding Claim 2, Chauhan discloses the computing device of Claim 1but fails to teach
detect that the temporary eSIM profile should be loaded into the eUICC of the computing device in response to detection that the call to the particular phone number has been initiated.
In a similar endeavor, Hampali teaches
detect that the temporary eSIM profile should be loaded into the eUICC of the computing device in response to detection that the call to the particular phone number has been initiated.
(Chauhan [Col. 7, line 38-42] The eSIM management platform 116 may include an application program interface (API) abstraction layer that provides multiple APIs to the various entities, in which the entities may call the APIs to initiate profile management tasks for the eSIM profiles.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Chauhan and by incorporating Hampali to load a eSIM profile when the call has been initiated.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to be more secured and private.
Regarding Claim 6, Chauhan discloses the computing device of Claim 1 but fails to teach
detect that the temporary eSIM profile has not been used for at least a threshold period of time and reclaim the temporary eSIM profile in response to detection that the temporary eSIM profile has not been used for at least the threshold period of time.
In a similar endeavor, Hampali teaches
detect that the temporary eSIM profile has not been used for at least a threshold period of time and reclaim the temporary eSIM profile in response to detection that the temporary eSIM profile has not been used for at least the threshold period of time.
(Hampali [0011, line 12-16] receiving a response from the server, the response including a second MSISDN number associated with a second eSIM profile whose operating status is active from the plurality of eSIM profiles based on inactive operating status associated with the first eSIM profile.
[0012, line 12-16] The method further includes transmitting a second MSISDN number associated with a second eSIM profile among the plurality of eSIM profiles whose operating status is active to the MNO in response to determining at the operating status associated with the eSIM profile is inactive.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Chauhan and by incorporating Hampali for the computing device to be enable to detect eSIM profile which has not been used for a threshold period.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to be able to indemnify the call pattern and allocate eSIM profile.
Regarding Claim 7, Chauhan and Hampali disclose the computing device of Claim 6 and
In a similar endeavor Hampali further teaches
reclaim the temporary eSIM profile via removal of the temporary eSIM profile from the eUICC of the computing device.
(Hampali [0013, line 10-18] receive a response from the server including a second MSISDN number associated with a second eSIM profile whose operating status is active from the plurality of eSIM profiles based on inactive operating status associated with the first eSIM profile; and route the incoming call on the second MSISDN number of the second eSIM profile whose operating status is active in response to receiving the response.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Chauhan and by incorporating Hampali for the computing device to be able to delete the temporary eSIM profile.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to be able to use the profiles more efficiently, and with security.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Chauhan et al. (US 11129026 B1, hereinafter Chauhan) in view of VENKATARAGHAVAN (US 20230171584 A1, hereinafter Venkataraghavan)
Regarding Claim 4, Chauhan discloses the computing device of Claim 1 and further teaches
location of the computing device
(Chauhan [Col. 11 and line 1-3] In an embodiment, the unique identification data may be one of a MSISDN, IMEI, or EID. Additionally, the token may include a location of a SM-DP+.)
However, Chauhan does not specifically teach
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to determine a number of calls limit and identify the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC for the computing device based on the number of calls limit.
In a similar endeavor, Venkataraghavan specifically teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to determine a number of calls limit and identify the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC for the computing device based on the number of calls limit.
(Venkataraghavan [0041, line 9-10] The subscription plans may include a number of free calls over various call types.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Chauhan and by incorporating Venkataraghavan to be able to identify the temporary eSIM profile based on the location of the device and limits of number of calls.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to choose the temporary profile from a stored pool based on where the device is located and/or the phone number being called. The goal is to make the outgoing call look more local or otherwise different, improving privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 5, Chauhan discloses the computing device of Claim 1 but fails to teach
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to determine a time usage limit and identify the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC for the computing device based on the location of the computing device and the time usage limit.
In a similar endeavor, Venkataraghavan teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to determine a time usage limit and identify the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC for the computing device based on the location of the computing device and the time usage limit.
(Venkataraghavan [0036, line 14-18] at the conclusion of a call, the UE 300 may provide the server device with information on the call (e.g., a call type and a call length), and the server device may input the same to the SIM selection algorithm and update the SIM card rankings.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Chauhan and by incorporating Venkataraghavan to be able to identify the temporary eSIM profile based on the location of the device and limits on time.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to choose the temporary profile from a stored pool based on where the device is located and/or the phone number being called. The goal is to make the outgoing/incoming call look more local or otherwise different, improving privacy and security.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali) in view of Indurkar (US 11825549 B2, hereinafter Indurkar)
Regarding Claim 9, Hampali discloses a system of Claim 8 but fails to teach
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to acquire a mapping table and
identify the temporary eSIM profile based on a mapping of the particular phone number to the temporary eSIM profile stored within the mapping table.
In a similar endeavor Indurkar teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to acquire a mapping table and
(Indurkar [Col. 11, line 17-20] At block 224, the method 220 comprises building an IMSI mapping between the first IMSI and the phone number to a second IMSI associated with the second wireless communication network.)
identify the temporary eSIM profile based on a mapping of the particular phone number to the temporary eSIM profile stored within the mapping table.
(Indurkar [Col. 2, line 13-20] The method comprises sending a message defining an association of a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) and a phone number associated with a mobile communication device for use in obtaining wireless communication service in a first wireless communication network by an application executing on a computer system to a second wireless communication network and building an IMSI mapping between the first IMSI and the phone number to a second IMSI associated with the second wireless communication network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Indurkar for the system to have a mapping table and identify a particular phone number with an eSIM profile stored in the mapping table.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to identify a temporary eSIM profile from a pool using location, area code, call count, time usage, or data usage criteria.
Regarding Claim 16, Hampali discloses a method of Claim 15 but fails to teach
further comprising: acquiring a mapping table; and
identify the temporary eSIM profile based on a mapping of the particular phone number to the temporary eSIM profile stored within the mapping table.
In a similar endeavor Indurkar teaches
further comprising: acquiring a mapping table; and
(Indurkar [Col. 11, line 17-20] At block 224, the method 220 comprises building an IMSI mapping between the first IMSI and the phone number to a second IMSI associated with the second wireless communication network.)
identify the temporary eSIM profile based on a mapping of the particular phone number to the temporary eSIM profile stored within the mapping table.
(Indurkar [Col. 2, line 13-20] The method comprises sending a message defining an association of a first international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) and a phone number associated with a mobile communication device for use in obtaining wireless communication service in a first wireless communication network by an application executing on a computer system to a second wireless communication network and building an IMSI mapping between the first IMSI and the phone number to a second IMSI associated with the second wireless communication network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Indurkar for the system to have a mapping table and identify a particular phone number with an eSIM profile stored in the mapping table.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to identify a temporary eSIM profile from a pool using location, area code, call count, time usage, or data usage criteria.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali) in view of Chauhan et al. (US 11129026 B1, hereinafter Chauhan)
Regarding Claim 10, Hampali discloses a system of Claim 8 but fails to teach
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to identify an eSIM profile within an eSIM database with the fewest number of placed calls to the particular phone number and assign the eSIM profile within the eSIM database with the fewest number of placed calls to the particular phone number as the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC.
In a similar endeavor Chauhan teaches
(Chauhan [Col. 3, line 46-49] The eSIM management platform may be configured to enable the entities to manage the deployment of eSIM profiles into eUICCs of prospective devices.)
(Chauhan [Col.5, lines 49-50] The core network 104 may include components that support 2G and 3G voice communication traffic, as well as 3G, 4G, and 5G data communication traffic.)
(Note: “communication traffic” in the reference determines “the fewest number of placed calls” in the disclosed invention.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Chauhan for the system to have identify a eSIM profile with less number of placed calls and that profile to be loaded as temporary profile in the eUICC.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to identify a temporary eSIM profile for efficient use of the calls.
Claims 11-13 and 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali) in view of VENKATARAGHAVAN (US 20230171584 A1, hereinafter Venkataraghavan)
Regarding Claim 11, Hampali discloses the system of Claim 8 but fails to teach
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to a determine a time limit for persisting the temporary eSIM profile within the eUICC and reclaim the temporary eSIM profile in response to detection that the time limit has passed without a subsequent call being placed to the particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile stored within the eUICC.
In a similar endeavor Venkatarghavan teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to a determine a time limit for persisting the temporary eSIM profile within the eUICC and
(Venkataraghavan [0036, Line 14-18] at the conclusion of a call, the UE 300 may provide the server device with information on the call (e.g., a call type and a call length), and the server device may input the same to the SIM selection algorithm and update the SIM card rankings.)
reclaim the temporary eSIM profile in response to detection that the time limit has passed without a subsequent call being placed to the particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile stored within the eUICC.
(Venkataraghavan [0043, line 1-7] The call parameters may also include signal strength per SIM card, interference level per SIM card, and a user location. Other quality parameters may include a number of failed or dropped calls occurring per SIM and a mean opinion score (MOS). The MOS may be an indicator of voice quality, and may be a range (e.g., a range of 1-5, with 5 being the best quality).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Venkataraghavan for the system to identify time limit and erase the temporary profile.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to determine the usage of eSIM profile efficiently.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Hampali and Venkataraghavan teach claim 11 and Venkataraghavan further teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to determine the time limit based on a length of time during which the call to the particular phone number was made.
(Venkataraghavan [0036, line 14-18] at the conclusion of a call, the UE 300 may provide the server device with information on the call (e.g., a call type and a call length), and the server device may input the same to the SIM selection algorithm and update the SIM card rankings.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Venkataraghavan for the system to identify time limit of the call based on the length of time.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to determine when a profile is appropriate and when it expires.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Hampali and Venkataraghavan teach claim 11 and Venkataraghavan further teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to determine the time limit based on a number of prior calls made to the particular phone number.
(Venkataraghavan [0047, 1-3] The SIM selection algorithm pre-determines (i.e., prior to a new call) the optimal SIM card according to cost weights calculated for each SIM card.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Venkataraghavan for the system to identify time limit based on the prior call made to the target phone number.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to determine when a profile is appropriate and when it expires.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Hampali and Venkataraghavan teach 15 but fail to teach
determining a time limit for persisting the temporary eSIM profile within the eUICC of the electronic device;
and reclaiming the temporary eSIM profile in response to detecting that the time limit has passed without a subsequent call being placed to the particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile stored within the eUICC of the electronic device.
In a similar endeavor Venkatarghavan further teaches
determining a time limit for persisting the temporary eSIM profile within the eUICC of the electronic device;
(Venkataraghavan [0036, line 14-18] at the conclusion of a call, the UE 300 may provide the server device with information on the call (e.g., a call type and a call length), and the server device may input the same to the SIM selection algorithm and update the SIM card rankings.)
and reclaiming the temporary eSIM profile in response to detecting that the time limit has passed without a subsequent call being placed to the particular phone number using the temporary eSIM profile stored within the eUICC of the electronic device.
(Venkataraghavan [0043, line 1-7] The call parameters may also include signal strength per SIM card, interference level per SIM card, and a user location. Other quality parameters may include a number of failed or dropped calls occurring per SIM and a mean opinion score (MOS). The MOS may be an indicator of voice quality, and may be a range (e.g., a range of 1-5, with 5 being the best quality).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Venkataraghavan for the system to identify time limit and erase the temporary profile.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to determine the usage of eSIM profile efficiently.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Hampali and Venkataraghavan teaches claim 18 and Venkataraghavan further teaches
wherein: the determining the time limit includes determining the time limit based on a length of time during which the call to the particular phone number was made.
(Venkataraghavan [0036, line 14-18] at the conclusion of a call, the UE 300 may provide the server device with information on the call (e.g., a call type and a call length), and the server device may input the same to the SIM selection algorithm and update the SIM card rankings.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Venkataraghavan for the method to identify time limit of the call based on the length of time.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing system to determine when a profile is appropriate and when it expires.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Hampali and Venkataraghavan teaches claim 18 and Venkataraghavan further teaches
wherein: the determining the time limit includes determining the time limit based on a number of prior calls made to the particular phone number using the electronic device.
(Venkataraghavan [0047, line 1-3] The SIM selection algorithm pre-determines (i.e., prior to a new call) the optimal SIM card according to cost weights calculated for each SIM card.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Venkataraghavan for the method to identify time limit based on the prior call made to the target phone number.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing method to determine when a profile is appropriate and when it expires.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali) in view of VENKATARAGHAVAN (US 20230171584 A1, hereinafter Venkataraghavan) and in further view of RAO et al. (US 20240406708 A1, hereinafter Rao)
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Hampali and Venkataraghavan teach claim 11 but fail to teach
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to reclaim the temporary eSIM profile via deletion of the temporary eSIM profile from the eUICC.
In a similar endeavor, Rao teaches
wherein: the one or more processors are configured to reclaim the temporary eSIM profile via deletion of the temporary eSIM profile from the eUICC.
(Rao [0003, line 18-22] The eUICCs can include a rewritable memory that can facilitate installation, modification, and/or deletion of one or more electronic SIMs (eSIMs) on the eUICC, where the eSIMs can provide for new and/or different services and/or updates for accessing extended features provided by MNOs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and Venkataraghavan and by incorporating Rao for the system to be able to reclaim the eSIM profile via deletion of the temporary profile.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the system to be able to use the eSIM profiles more efficiently and with security and privacy.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C as being unpatentable over Hampali (US 20240056791 A1, hereinafter Hampali) in view of Indurkar (US 11825549 B2, hereinafter Indurkar) and in further view of HEGDE (US 20240259783 A1, hereinafter Hegde)
Regarding Claim 17, Hampali teaches the method of Claim 15 but fails to teach
acquiring a mapping table;
detecting that the mapping table does not include a mapping for the particular phone number;
and identifying the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC of the electronic device based on a number of placed calls to the particular phone number in response to detecting that the mapping table does not include the mapping for the particular phone number.
In a similar endeavor Indurkar teaches
acquiring a mapping table;
(Indurkar [Col. 11, line 17-20] At block 224, the method 220 comprises building an IMSI mapping between the first IMSI and the phone number to a second IMSI associated with the second wireless communication network.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and by incorporating Indurkar for the system to have a mapping table.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the computing device to identify a temporary eSIM profile from a pool using location, area code, call count, time usage, or data usage criteria.
But Indurkar fails to teach
detecting that the mapping table does not include a mapping for the particular phone number;
and identifying the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC of the electronic device based on a number of placed calls to the particular phone number in response to detecting that the mapping table does not include the mapping for the particular phone number.
However, in a similar endeavor Hegde teaches
detecting that the mapping table does not include a mapping for the particular phone number;
(Hegde [0040, line 1-9] a profile matching the MCC-MNC combination may not exist in the corresponding storage 112a-c. If a profile matching the MCC-MNC combination does not exist in the corresponding storage 112a-c, the user devices 108a-c may be unable to (e.g., fail to) identify a profile matching the MCC-MNC in the corresponding storage 112a-c. Thus, the user devices 108a-c may be unable to connect to the first network 102 using the MCC-MNC combination.)
and identifying the temporary eSIM profile to be loaded into the eUICC of the electronic device based on a number of placed calls to the particular phone number in response to detecting that the mapping table does not include the mapping for the particular phone number.
(Hegde [0041, line 1-7] The user devices 108a-c may be configured to determine (e.g., access, read) the particular service identifier stored in the corresponding SIM card. The user devices 108a-c may be configured to determine the service identifier stored in the respective SIM card based on determining that a profile matching the MCC-MNC combination does not exist in the corresponding storage 112a-c.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Hampali and Indurkar by incorporating Hegde for the method identify a particular phone number in the mapping table and a temporary eSIM profile needs to be loaded for that phone number.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the method to identify a number that is not in the pool so that security measures are taken by creating a temporary eSIM profile.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANA HASSAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-8939. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/RANA H MAHMUD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/SAID M ELNOUBI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights