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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, upon further consideration the examiner believes Di Girolamo teaches “performing, by the terminal device, at least one of the following operations according to the network selection policy: selecting a PLMN for binding to an application; deciding whether to permit data of an application to be transmitted on a registered PLMN of the terminal device; selecting a PLMN for registering based on an application and the correspondence relationship between the application and the PLMN.” Although the claim only requires at least one of the operations, Di Girolamo teaches all three of the operations. Di Girolamo paragraphs [0125]-[0127] explain the DEV receiving PLMN lists that are based on the currently running applications. Therefore, the PLMN’s in the list are associated, correspondence relationship, with the currently running applications. These PLMN lists are used to select or reselect a PLMN. The selected/reselected PLMN is selected for binding to the currently running applications. Additionally, the DEV then is permitted to transmit data via the selected/reselected PLMN. Also, Di Girolamo further explains in paragraphs [0077], [0081], [0082] determining that the PLMN allows a DEV to register for restricted access for network selection assistance. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 102 as further explained below. Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 1.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pub No.: US-20210258869-A1 (herein “Di Girolamo”).
Consider claim 1, Di Girolamo teaches a network selection method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a terminal device, a network selection policy, wherein the network selection policy comprises a correspondence relationship between an application and a public land mobile network (PLMN) (see Di Girolamo [0063], [0064] note URSP including an SSCMSP, a NSSP, and a DNN selection policy);
performing, by the terminal device, at least one of the following operations according to the network selection policy:
selecting a PLMN for binding to an application (see Di Girolamo [0125], [0127] note supplying the UE with a set of PLMN lists for the UE to use to perform a PLMN selection/reselection where the PLMN lists are based on the UE’s current location and currently active applications);
deciding whether to permit data of an application to be transmitted on a registered PLMN of the terminal device (see Di Girolamo [0077], [0081], [0082] note the DEV1 determines that the PLMN allows restricted access for network selection assistance and );
selecting a PLMN for registering based on an application and the correspondence relationship between the application and the PLMN (see Di Girolamo [0057]-[0059] [0125], [0127] note supplying the UE with a set of PLMN lists for the UE to use to perform a PLMN selection/reselection where the PLMN lists are based on the UE’s current location and currently active applications).
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 1.
Consider claim 2, Di Girolamo teaches wherein under the circumstance that content of the network selection policy is that a PLMN corresponding to an application is the same as a forbidden PLMN, the forbidden PLMN is not selected for binding to the application (see Di Girolamo [0055] note Forbidden PLMN).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 2.
Consider claim 3, Di Girolamo teaches wherein when content of the network selection policy is that a PLMN corresponding to an application is an equivalent PLMN of a currently registered PLMN of the terminal device, the currently registered PLMN is selected for binding to the application (see Di Girolamo [0054] note UE stores an EHPLMN list).
Consider claim 4, Di Girolamo teaches wherein when content of the network selection policy is that a PLMN corresponding to an application belongs to one PLMN within a registration area of the terminal device, and another PLMN within the registration area is a currently registered PLMN of the terminal device, the currently registered PLMN is selected for binding to the application (see Di Girolamo [0075], [0106] note tracking area update procedure during the PLMN update).
Consider claim 5, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the correspondence relationship between the application and the PLMN comprises: a correspondence relationship between an application and one PLMN; or, correspondence relationships between an application and at least two PLMNs (see Di Girolamo [0078] note the application has a preferred PLMN/RAT list).
Consider claim 6, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the correspondence relationship between the application and the PLMN in the network selection policy has a priority order (see Di Girolamo [0052] note priority order).
Consider claim 7, Di Girolamo teaches wherein under the circumstance that the network selection policy comprises correspondence relationships between an application and at least two PLMNs, the at least two PLMNs have a priority order (see Di Girolamo [0052] note priority order).
Consider claim 8, Di Girolamo teaches wherein under the circumstance that the network selection policy further comprises: correspondence relationships between an application and at least two PLMNs, and the at least two PLMNs do not have a priority order, one PLMN of the at least two PLMNs is selected for binding to the application (see Di Girolamo [0056]-[0057] note the UE will try to re-register on the last/prior RPLMN).
Consider claim 9, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the network selection policy further comprises: selecting an available PLMN for binding to an application under the circumstance that none of PLMNs corresponding to the application is available (see Di Girolamo [0056]-[0057] note the RPLMN is no longer available then switching to the highest priority PLMN).
Consider claim 10, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the available PLMN is a registered PLMN of the terminal device (see Di Girolamo [0056]-[0057] note the UE will try to re-register on the last/prior RPLMN).
Consider claim 11, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the correspondence relationship between the application and the PLMN comprises: a correspondence relationship of at least one application forbidden to use under different PLMNs; and/or, a correspondence relationship of at least one application permitted to use under different PLMNs (see Di Girolamo [0078] note the application has a preferred PLMN list).
Consider claim 12, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the terminal device evaluates whether application binding relationships corresponding to different PLMNs in the network selection policy are feasible according to a priority order of the PLMNs (see Di Girolamo [0052], [0078] note the UE application has a preferred PLMN/RAT list with different PLMNs which in automatic mode have a priority order).
Consider claim 13, Di Girolamo teaches further comprising binding, by the terminal device, different applications to different universal subscriber identity modules (USIMs) under the circumstance that the terminal device uses multiple USIMs (see Di Girolamo [0054] note selection list targeting the USIM).
Consider claim 14, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the binding, by the terminal device, different applications to different USIMs comprises: determining, by the terminal device, binding relationships between applications and USIMs according to PLMNs corresponding respectively to networks registered by multiple USIMs and the network selection policy (see Di Girolamo [0054] note selection list targeting the USIM).
Consider claim 15, Di Girolamo teaches wherein under the circumstance that the terminal device uses multiple USIMs, the selecting, by the terminal device, a PLMN for binding to an application according to the network selection policy comprises: selecting, by the terminal device, one PLMN for binding to an application based on a priority order of running applications (see Di Girolamo [0054] note selection list targeting the USIM USIM).
Consider claim 16, Di Girolamo teaches wherein under the circumstance that the terminal device uses a single USIM, the deciding, by the terminal device, whether to permit data of an application to be transmitted on a currently registered PLMN of the terminal device according to the network selection policy comprises: determining, by the terminal device, whether to permit data of an application to be transmitted on the currently registered PLMN based on the currently registered PLMN of the terminal device and the network selection policy (see Di Girolamo [0056]-[0057] note the UE will try to re-register on the last/prior RPLMN).
Consider claim 17, Di Girolamo teaches wherein the network selection policy is transferred by a policy control function (PCF) entity to an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity through a container, and then is sent by the AMF entity to the terminal device through a non-access stratum (NAS) message (see Di Girolamo [0063] note the PCF provides the URSP to the UE via the AMF).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS C HAMMONDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISON T. SLATER can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
/MARCUS HAMMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights