DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 18/867,922 filed on November 21, 2024, as a 371 National Stage entry of International Application Number PCT/EP2023/062659. The preliminary amendment filed November 21, 2024, has been entered. Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 13 and 15 are currently amended. Claims 1-15 are pending and are examined.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a 371 National Stage entry of International Application Number PCT/EP2023/062659, filed on May 11, 2023.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on French application Ser. No. 2204935 filed on May 23, 2022. Receipt of the certified copy of the French application on March 26, 2026, is hereby acknowledged.
Drawings
Drawings were received on November 21, 2024. The drawings are objected to because Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated November 11, 2024, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 1, the term “the management method” recited in line 2 should be “the method”; and
regarding Claim 5, the clause “was received” recited in lines 3 and 5 should be “is received”;
regarding Claim 8, the term “the check” recited in line 11 should be “the checking”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “storing in memory profile data from among the received profile data, each stored profile datum being stored in association with said service” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each stored profile datum” in the claim.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites the limitation “upon detection of said event, sending, to the host terminal, the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the most recent profile datum” in the claim.
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 15 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 1 to replace the term “each stored profile datum” recited in lines 6-7 with “each profile datum of the stored profile data” and to replace the term “the most recent profile datum” recited in lines 10-11 with the “a most recent profile datum” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the centralized profile management device furthermore receives other profile data that are intended for at least one other secure element, wherein each profile datum is received with an identifier of a secure element for which it is intended, wherein each stored profile datum is furthermore stored in association with the identifier of the secure element for which it is intended, and wherein the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service is sent with the identifier of the secure element for which it is intended” in lines 1-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each profile datum” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 2 to replace the term “each profile datum” recited in line 3 with “each profile datum of the received profile data” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein each stored profile datum is associated, respectively, with a version datum, wherein the version datum is a time of receipt by the centralized profile management device or a version number of a profile associated with the profile datum, wherein the sent profile datum corresponds to the profile datum having the most recent version datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service” in lines 1-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “each stored profile datum”, “the sent profile datum” and “the most recent version datum” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 3 to replace the term “each stored profile datum” recited in line 2 with “each profile datum of the stored profile data”, replace the term “the sent profile datum” recited in line 5 with the “the most recent profile datum”, and replace the term “the most recent version datum” recited in lines 5-6 with “a most recent version datum” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein each profile datum is received with a respective service identification datum” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each profile datum” in the claims.
Dependent Claim 5 is rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 4 in view of its dependence thereon.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 4 to replace the term “each profile datum” recited in line 2 with “each profile datum of the received profile data” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a service identification datum from among the received service identification data is: an identifier of the processing device from which the profile datum was received; a network address of the processing device from which the associated profile datum was received; an identifier of a service provider managing a service associated with the received profile datum; or an identifier of a service associated with the received profile datum” in lines 1-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the received service identification data”, “the processing device”, “the associated profile datum”, and “the received profile datum” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 5 to replace the clause “wherein a service identification datum from among the received service identification data is” recited in lines 1-2 with “wherein the respective service identification datum is”, and to replace the terms “the processing device” recited in lines 3 and 4 with “a processing device”, replace the term “the associated profile datum” recited in line 4 with “the profile datum”, and replace the term “the received profile datum” recited in lines 6-7 and line 8 with “the profile datum” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 6 recites the clause “for each received profile datum associated with the service” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each received profile datum” in the claims.
Continuing, Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the sent profile datum is the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service and the current service provider associated with the secure element for said service” in lines 7-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the sent profile datum” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 6 to replace the term “each received profile datum” recited in line 2 with “each profile datum of the received profile data” and replace the clause “wherein the sent profile datum is the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service” with “wherein the most recent profile datum is a most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service”.
Additionally, Claim 7 recites the clause “receiving, from the host terminal or from a management platform for managing the host terminal, an interrogation request comprising identification information in relation to said given service” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “said given service” in the claims. Additionally, the scope of “identification information in relation to said given service” is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
The Examiner suggests replacing the term “identification information in relation to said given service” recited in lines 5-6 with “identification information of the service” to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 8 recites the clause “wherein each processing device from among the plurality of processing devices has a respective first asymmetric key pair, each first asymmetric key pair comprising a private key and a public key, the public key being shared between the processing device and the centralized profile management device, wherein each received profile datum is signed with the private key of the issuing processing device” in lines 2-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “each received profile datum” and “the issuing processing device” in the claims.
Continuing, Claim 8 recites the clause “for each received profile datum” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each received profile datum” in the claims.
Further, Claim 8 recites the limitation “the centralized profile management device checking the signature of the profile datum based on the public key of the issuing processing device” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the signature of the profile datum” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 8 to replace the term “each received profile datum” recited in lines 5 and 7 with “each profile datum of the received profile data”, replace the term “the issuing processing device” recited in line 6 with “an issuing processing device”, and replace the term “the signature of the profile datum” recited in lines 8-9” with “a signature of the profile datum” to overcome the rejection.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein, for each stored profile datum, said profile datum is signed using the private key of the centralized profile management device” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “each stored profile datum” in the claim.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 9 to replace the term “each stored profile datum” recited in line 6 with “each profile datum of the stored profile data” to overcome the rejection.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 12-14 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 11 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 8.
Additionally, insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 9.
Additionally, Claim 14 recites the limitation “upon receipt of the signed profile datum, check the associated signatures using the public key of the processing device that issued the profile datum and the public key of the centralized profile management device” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the signed profile datum”, “the associated signatures”, “the processing device that issued the profile datum” and “the public key of the centralized profile management device” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 14 to depend from Claim 13, and to replace the term “the signed profile datum” with “a signed profile datum”, to replace the term “the associated signatures” with “an associated signature”, replace the term “the processing device that issued the profile datum” with “a processing device that issued the profile datum” to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 10, “[a] centralized profile management device” is recited. In lines 1-2 of page 21, the instant specification states:
“Figure 6 shows one example of a centralized profile management device for carrying out a transaction according to one or more embodiments of the invention (emphasis added).”
In lines 8-9 of page 22, the instant specification further states, in part:
“Furthermore, the device 600 may be implemented in the form of software, in which case it takes the form of a program able to be executed by a processor, or in the form of hardware, such as an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a system on chip (SOC), or in the form of a combination of hardware elements and software elements, such as for example a software program intended to be loaded onto and executed on an electronic component described above (for example FPGA, processor) (emphasis added).”
In view of the specification, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of a “centralized profile management device” includes software, per se. A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and such claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to positively recite a microprocessor and memory comprising program instructions thereon as being comprised by the centralized profile management device to overcome the rejection.
Regarding Claim 15, “[a] computer program product comprising instructions for implementing the method as claimed in claim 1 when this program is executed by a processor” is recited. While the instructions comprised by the computer program product are executed by a processor, the processor is not part of the claimed computer program product. In lines 5-12 of page 10, the instant specification states:
“Given that the present invention may be implemented in software, the present invention may be incorporated in the form of computer-readable code to be supplied to a programmable apparatus on any appropriate medium. A tangible or non-transient medium may comprise a storage medium such as a hard drive reader, a magnetic tape device or a semiconductor memory device and the like. A transient medium may comprise a signal such as an electrical signal, an electronic signal, an optical signal, an acoustic signal, a magnetic signal or an electromagnetic signal, for example a microwave or RF (radiofrequency) signal (emphasis added).”
In view of the specification, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of a “computer program product” includes signals, per se. A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and such claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.
The Examiner suggests amending the claim to positively recite the computer program product comprises instructions stored a non-transitory computer-readable medium to overcome the rejection.
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 1-7, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikberg et al., Pub. No. US 2020/0396593 A1, hereby “Vikberg”, in view of Merrien et al., Pub. No. US 2013/0283047 A1, hereby “Merrien”.
Regarding Claim 1, Vikberg discloses “A method for managing service profiles of a secure element of a host terminal, the management method being implemented by a centralized profile management device external to the host terminal (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 1, 45-46 and 74: a method for remote SIM profile provisioning, the method being implemented by SIM profile management arrangement (SPMA) 60) and comprising:
receiving, from a plurality of processing devices, profile data corresponding to one and the same service and intended for the secure element (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 9, 45-46 and 74: SPMA 60 registers a totality of SIM profiles for a subscriber, wherein each SIM profile comprises personalized SIM information for communication in at least one wireless communication network of a respective service provider);
storing in memory profile data from among the received profile data, each stored profile datum being stored in association with said service (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 9, 45-46 and 74: SPMA 60 registers a totality of SIM profiles for a subscriber, wherein each SIM profile comprises personalized SIM information for communication in at least one wireless communication network of a respective service provider);
detecting an event that triggers updating of a service profile of the secure element for said service (Vikberg figs. 2, 5 and 7 and paragraphs 46, 52-53, 75 and 89: SPMA 60 determines a need for SIM profile provisioning, e.g., in response to receiving a request from TCA 40); and
upon detection of said event, sending, to the host terminal... profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (Vikberg figs. 2, 5 and 7 and paragraphs 46, 64, 76 and 94-95: SPMA 60 downloads the most appropriate set of SIM profiles of the totality of SIM profiles to TCA 40).”
However, while Vikberg discloses that the SPMA selects the most appropriate set of SIM profiles to download to the TCA (Vikberg paragraph 46), Vikberg does not explicitly disclose “upon detection of said event, sending, to the host terminal, the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Merrien discloses “upon detection of said event, sending, to the host terminal, the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (Merrien figs. 6 and 9 and paragraphs 33, 38, 47 and 49: in response to a request, subscriber profile wallet 501, which may be in cloud 605, transmits the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to mobile device 103 comprising UICC 201).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine sending the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal to prevent activation of old subscriber profiles that have either been superseded or modified (Merrien paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Merrien discloses “wherein the centralized profile management device furthermore receives other profile data that are intended for at least one other secure element, wherein each profile datum is received with an identifier of a secure element for which it is intended, wherein each stored profile datum is furthermore stored in association with the identifier of the secure element for which it is intended, and wherein the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service is sent with the identifier of the secure element for which it is intended (Merrien paragraphs 33, 36 and 49: subscriber profiles stored in the profile wallet are stored in association with a particular UICC 201, a particular operator, and a version number).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Merrien discloses “herein each stored profile datum is associated, respectively, with a version datum, wherein the version datum is a time of receipt by the centralized profile management device or a version number of a profile associated with the profile datum, wherein the sent profile datum corresponds to the profile datum having the most recent version datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (Merrien paragraphs 33, 36 and 49: subscriber profiles stored in the profile wallet are stored in association with a particular UICC 201, a particular operator, and a version number).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Merrien discloses “wherein each profile datum is received with a respective service identification datum (Merrien figs. 6 and 8 and paragraph 44 and 49: a subscriber profile that associates the user with operator B 815 is received by profile wallet 501 wherein the subscriber profile is stored in association with the particular operator, i.e., operator B – while not explicitly stated, providing a name or identifier of operator B, i.e., a respective service identification datum, is inferred), the method furthermore comprising:
for each profile datum received and stored in memory, determining a corresponding service based on the respective service identification datum received with said profile datum and storing the profile datum in association with the determined corresponding service (Merrien paragraphs 33 and 49: subscriber profiles stored in the profile wallet are stored in association with a particular UICC 201, a particular operator, and a version number).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4.
Additionally, Merrien suggests “wherein a service identification datum from among the received service identification data is:
an identifier of the processing device from which the profile datum was received;
a network address of the processing device from which the associated profile datum was received;
an identifier of a service provider managing a service associated with the received profile datum (Merrien figs. 6 and 8 and paragraph 44 and 49: while not explicitly stated, providing a name or identifier of operator B, i.e., a respective service identification datum, is inferred); or
an identifier of a service associated with the received profile datum.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Merrien discloses “for each received profile datum associated with the service:
determining a service provider associated with the profile datum and storing the profile datum in association with the determined service provider (Merrien paragraphs 33 and 49: a subscriber profile is associated with a particular UICC 201, a particular operator, and a version number);
upon detection of said event, determining, based on a database, a current service provider associated with the secure element for said service (Merrien figs. 9 and 10 and paragraphs 46 and 49-50: in response to a roaming situation, the best profile to use in the new network is selected and retrieved from profile wallet 501);
wherein the sent profile datum is the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service and the current service provider associated with the secure element for said service (Merrien figs. 6 and 9 and paragraphs 33, 38, 47 and 49: subscriber profile wallet 501 transmits the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to mobile device 103 comprising UICC 201).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Vikberg discloses “wherein the detection of the event that triggers the updating of the service profile of the secure element comprises:
receiving, from the host terminal or from a management platform for managing the host terminal, an interrogation request comprising identification information in relation to said given service (Vikberg figs. 2, 5 and 7 and paragraphs 46, 52-53, 58, 75 and 89: SPMA 60 receives a request for a new set of SIM profiles from TCA 40, the request comprising information identifying the location of the TCA, e.g., PLMN-IDs of detected networks, Mobile Country Code (MCC) or Mobile Network Code (MNC), etc., i.e., identification information in relation to said given service).”
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Vikberg discloses “A centralized profile management device for managing communication profiles of a secure element of a host terminal, the centralized profile management device being external to the host terminal... (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 16, 45-46 and 74: SIM profile management arrangement (SPMA) 60 for managing SIM profiles stored on an eUICC of a telematics control arrangement (TCA) 40, i.e., a host terminal).”
Regarding Claim 11, Vikberg discloses “A system comprising a host terminal having a secure element, a centralized profile management device external to the host terminal and a plurality of processing devices (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 16, 45-48 and 74: SIM profile management arrangement system comprising a wireless device or vehicle, i.e., a host terminal, that comprises telematics control arrangement (TCA) 40 including an eUICC, SIM profile management arrangement (SPMA) 60 and a plurality of cellular operators) wherein the centralized profile management device is configured to:
receive, from a plurality of processing devices, profile data corresponding to one and the same service and intended for the secure element; (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 9, 45-46 and 74: SPMA 60 registers a totality of SIM profiles for a subscriber, wherein each SIM profile comprises personalized SIM information for communication in at least one wireless communication network of a respective service provider);
store in memory profile data from among the received profile data, each stored profile datum being stored in association with said service (Vikberg figs. 2 and 5 and paragraphs 9, 45-46 and 74: SPMA 60 registers a totality of SIM profiles for a subscriber, wherein each SIM profile comprises personalized SIM information for communication in at least one wireless communication network of a respective service provider);
detect an event that triggers updating of a service profile of the secure element for said service (Vikberg figs. 2, 5 and 7 and paragraphs 46, 52-53, 75 and 89: SPMA 60 determines a need for SIM profile provisioning, e.g., in response to receiving a request from TCA 40); and
upon detection of said event, send, to the host terminal... profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (Vikberg figs. 2, 5 and 7 and paragraphs 46, 64, 76 and 94-95: SPMA 60 downloads the most appropriate set of SIM profiles of the totality of SIM profiles to TCA 40);
wherein the secure element is configured to:
receive the profile datum sent by the centralized profile management device (Vikberg figs. 2 and 3 and paragraph 64: the selected SIM profiles are downloaded from SPMA 60 to TCA 40); and
update the service profile based on the received profile datum (Vikberg figs. 2 and 3 and paragraphs 64-65: at least one of the downloaded SIM profiles is activated, i.e., the SIM profile in use by the terminal is updated).”
However, while Vikberg discloses that the SPMA selects the most appropriate set of SIM profiles to download to the TCA (Vikberg paragraph 46), Vikberg does not explicitly disclose “upon detection of said event, send, to the host terminal, the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Merrien discloses “upon detection of said event, send, to the host terminal, the most recent profile datum from among the stored profile data associated with said service (Merrien figs. 6 and 9 and paragraphs 33, 38, 47 and 49: in response to a request, subscriber profile wallet 501, which may be in cloud 605, transmits the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to mobile device 103 comprising UICC 201).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the system of Vikberg to send the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal as taught by Merrien. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine sending the most recent subscriber profile for the particular mobile operator to the terminal to prevent activation of old subscriber profiles that have either been superseded or modified (Merrien paragraph 49).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Vikberg discloses “A computer program product comprising instructions for implementing the method as claimed in claim 1 when this program is executed by a processor (Vikberg paragraph 18: a computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon that implements remote SIM provisioning).”
Claims 8, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable the combination of Vikberg and Merrien in view of Li et al., Pub. No. US 2023/0354040 A1, hereby “Li”.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Vikberg discloses that the SPMA receives and stores the totality of SIM profiles for a subscriber from one or more service providers, e.g., cellular operators (Vikberg paragraph 74), and Merrien discloses that the signature of a subscriber profile received from the profile wallet is verified before the subscriber profile is stored and activated by the UICC (Merrien paragraph 48), the combination of Vikberg and Merrien does not explicitly disclose “wherein each processing device from among the plurality of processing devices has a respective first asymmetric key pair, each first asymmetric key pair comprising a private key and a public key, the public key being shared between the processing device and the centralized profile management device, wherein each received profile datum is signed with the private key of the issuing processing device, the method furthermore comprising, for each received profile datum:
the centralized profile management device checking the signature of the profile datum based on the public key of the issuing processing device; and
storing the received profile datum in the memory of the centralized profile management device only if the check is successful.”
In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein an eUICC of a wireless device utilizes the public key of the profile management server to verify signed messages received from the profile management server (Li figs. 1 and 3A and paragraphs 16, 22 and 26: “Separately, at 314, a certificate and an associated server public key, PKserver, can be installed on the eUICC 108 of the wireless device 102, where the certificate and/or the server public key PKserver can be used to verify signed messages received by the wireless device 102 from the profile management server 302.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg, as modified by Merrien, to utilize, by the SPMA, the public key of the service provider to verify signatures provided with profiles received from the service providers as taught by Li because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (verifying signature of a profile management request using a public key of the sender) to improve similar devices (an SPMA) in the same way (ensure SIM profiles received from service providers have not been tampered with or otherwise modified). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Vikberg and Merrien discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Vikberg discloses that the SPMA receives and stores the totality of SIM profiles for a subscriber from one or more service providers, e.g., cellular operators (Vikberg paragraph 74), and Merrien discloses that the signature of a subscriber profile received from the profile wallet is verified before the subscriber profile is stored and activated by the UICC (Merrien paragraph 48), the combination of Vikberg and Merrien does not explicitly disclose “wherein the centralized profile management device has a second asymmetric key pair, the second asymmetric key pair comprising a private key of the centralized profile management device and a public key of the centralized profile management device, the public key of the second asymmetric key pair being shared between the centralized profile management device and the secure element, wherein, for each stored profile datum, said profile datum is signed using the private key of the centralized profile management device.”
In the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein an eUICC of a wireless device utilizes the public key of the profile management server to verify signed messages received from the profile management server (Li figs. 1 and 3A and paragraphs 16, 22 and 26: “Separately, at 314, a certificate and an associated server public key, PKserver, can be installed on the eUICC 108 of the wireless device 102, where the certificate and/or the server public key PKserver can be used to verify signed messages received by the wireless device 102 from the profile management server 302.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Vikberg, as modified by Merrien, to utilize, by the eUICC, the public key of the SPMA to verify signatures provided with profiles received from the SPMA as taught by Li because doing so constitutes use of a known technique (verifying signature of a profile management request using a public key of the sender) to improve similar devices (an eUICC) in the same way (ensure SIM profiles received from the SPMA have not been tampered with or otherwise modified). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 8.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 9.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights