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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 01/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 10-11, 13-16, 18-19, 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040043798) in view of Park et al. (U.S. Pub. 20240008131), hereafter “Park131”.
Regarding claim 1 Kim disclose, a method implemented in a wireless device, WD, the method comprising:
determining that the WD is service area restricted when the WD is in an area defined as a non-allowed area according to subscription data associated with the WD para. 227, “In the non-allowed area under the given RAT, the UE may be service area restricted based on subscription”; and
operating in the non-allowed area using at least one service that is service area restricted in the non-allowed area based at least in part on at least one of the subscription data associated with the WD and an operator policy para. 234, “The UE may override the RAT restrictions, the forbidden area, and the non-allowed area restrictions whenever the UE accesses the network for regulatory prioritized services, such as emergency services and MPS”,
Kim does not specifically disclose, “wherein the at least one service is not a regulatory prioritized service. However, Park131 teach, “According to some implementations of the present disclosure, such problems may be addressed by the UE transmitting, to the network, a Service Request message that includes specific information indicating a change in UE's PS Data Off status. By receiving this specific information indicating the change in the UE's PS Data Off status, the network may enable the UE to successfully report its PS Data Off status, even if the UE is located in a non-allowed area where the UE may otherwise be unable to perform such reporting”. See para. 36.
Kim and Park131 are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to location-based parameters and configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park131 in the system of Kim to allow the user terminal to operate certain services according with the subscriptions and policies of the network on services restricted areas. The motivation for doing so would have been to control and support the network operation of certain services for users in non-allowed areas.
Regarding claim 3 Kim disclose, wherein the at least one service includes at least one of a short message service, SMS, over non-access stratum, a location service and an exception reporting service para. 258, “The AMF device also defers downlink transport over NAS for SMS, location services, etc.”.
Regarding claim 4 Kim disclose, further comprising: obtaining information indicating whether the at least one service is allowed for the WD in the non-allowed area para. 227, “The UE in the non-allowed area may respond to core network paging with the service request and RAN paging”.
Regarding claim 5 Kim disclose, wherein the information is comprised in at least one of a Nudm_SubscriberDataManagement service message para. 503, “a UDM may inform an AMF device of identities (e.g., FQDNs) of network functions that are authorized to request notifications on a UE reachability through a Nudm_UEContextManagement_Registration or Nudm_SubscriberData_Update service operation “ and a NamfCommunication_UEContextTransfer service message para. 507, “In operation 2, the SMF device may invoke Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer (PDU session ID, SMF reallocation requested indication, N1 SM container (PDU session modification command (cause, PDU session release timer))”.
Regarding claim 6 Kim disclose, wherein the information is included in a registration area field, the registration area field indicating whether the at least one service is allowed for the WD in the non-allowed area para. 503, “When the UE registers with the network over the 3GPP access, the AMF device may allocate a set of tracking areas included in a TAI list to the UE… to the UE, a variety of information (e.g., mobility pattern and allowed/non-allowed area)”.
Regarding claim 8 Kim disclose, wherein the non-allowed area is a service area in which the WD is not allowed to initiate a service request para. 227, “In the non-allowed area under the given RAT, the UE may be service area restricted based on subscription. The UE and the network are not allowed to initiate a service request”, a control plane service request and a session management, SM, signaling to obtain user services from a network associated with a network node para. 227, “or SM signaling to obtain user services”.
Regarding claim 10 the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13 the limitations of claim 13 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 14 Kim disclose, wherein the message is a NamfCommunication_UEContextTransfer service message para. 507, “In operation 2, the SMF device may invoke Namf_Communication_N1N2MessageTransfer (PDU session ID, SMF reallocation requested indication, N1 SM container (PDU session modification command (cause, PDU session release timer))”.
Regarding claim 15 Kim disclose, wherein the message includes a registration area field, the registration area field indicating whether the at least one service is allowed for the WD in the non-allowed area para. 503, “When the UE registers with the network over the 3GPP access, the AMF device may allocate a set of tracking areas included in a TAI list to the UE… to the UE, a variety of information (e.g., mobility pattern and allowed/non-allowed area)”.
Regarding claim 16 Kim disclose, wherein the message is a Nudm_SubscriberDataManagement service message para. 503, “a UDM may inform an AMF device of identities (e.g., FQDNs) of network functions that are authorized to request notifications on a UE reachability through a Nudm_UEContextManagement_Registration or Nudm_SubscriberData_Update service operation”.
Regarding claim 18 Kim disclose, wherein the network node is one of an access and mobility function, AMF, node and a unified data management, UDM, node para. 154, “the AMF device may allocate a set of tracking areas included in a TAI list to the UE”. The claim list features in the alternative format. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 19 the limitations of claim 19 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 21 Kim disclose a wireless device, WD, configured to communicate with a network node the WD comprising processing circuitry read as: “a processor, a controller, a digital signal processor, microprocessor, etc.” configured to cause the WD to determine that the WD is service area restricted when the WD is in an area defined as a non-allowed area according to subscription data associated with the WD para. 227, “In the non-allowed area under the given RAT, the UE may be service area restricted based on subscription”; and
operate in the non-allowed area using at least one service that is service area restricted in the non-allowed area based at least in part on at least one of the subscription data associated with the WD and an operator policy para. 234, “The UE may override the RAT restrictions, the forbidden area, and the non-allowed area restrictions whenever the UE accesses the network for regulatory prioritized services, such as emergency services and MPS”.
Claim 22 recites a apparatus product corresponding to the apparatus of claim 21 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 25 recites a system, corresponding to the apparatus of claim 22 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 22.
Claim(s) 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. 20040043798) in view of Park et al. (U.S. Pub. 20240008131), hereafter “Park131”, further in view of Park et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200275513).
Regarding claim 7 Kim and Park131 does not specifically disclose, wherein the information is included in a service area restriction field, the service area restriction field indicating whether the at least one service is allowed for the WD in the non-allowed area. However, Park teach, “If the AMF determines to locate the UE in the non-allowed area or in an area that is not the allowed area, the AMF may verify the information included in the Service Request message. In case the information related to the change in the PS data off status is included in the Service Request message, the AMF may accept the Service Request message and may perform the procedure for the Service Request”, see para. 686.
Kim, Park131 and Park are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to location-based parameters and configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park in the system of Kim and Park131 to allow the user terminal to operate certain services according with the subscriptions and policies of the network on services restricted areas. The motivation for doing so would have been to control and support the network operation in non-allowed areas.
Regarding claim 9 Kim and Park131 does not specifically disclose, wherein operating in the non-allowed area using the at least one service when the at least one of the subscription data and the operator policy indicates that the at least one service is allowed in the non-allowed area. However, Park teach, “the AMF may transmit a Service Request Accept message to the UE. The AMF may establish an NAS signaling connection for the UE so that the 5GMM (or CM) status of the UE can be transitioned (or shifted) from the IDLE state to the CONNECTED state”, see para. 627.
Park further teach, otherwise, operating in the non-allowed area without using the at least one service para. 486, “In case the network is accessed due to regulatory prioritized services, such as Emergency services and MPS, the UE and the network shall always override the Forbidden Area, the Non-allowed Area”.
Kim, Park131 and Park are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to location-based parameters and configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park in the system of Kim and Park131 to allow or denied the user terminal operation of certain services according with the subscriptions and policies of the network on services restricted areas. The motivation for doing so would have been to control and support the network operation in non-allowed areas.
Regarding claim 11 Kim and Park131 does not specifically disclose, wherein providing the support further comprises: obtaining and sending a message indicating that the at least one service that is service area restricted is allowed for the WD in the non-allowed area. However, Park teach, “although the AMF shall reject all Service Request procedures of the UE which is located in the non-allowed area, if the UE's Service Request message include information notifying that the request is for PS Data Off status reporting, then the AMF may accept the Service Request message of the UE without rejecting it”, see para. 614. The AMF sends a message accepting the service request while in the non-allowed area, indicating the service allowed in that restricted area.
Kim, Park131 and Park are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to location-based parameters and configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park in the system of Kim and Park131 to allow the user terminal communication with the network according with the policies applying on services restricted areas. The motivation for doing so would have been to control and support the network operation in non-allowed areas.
Regarding claim 17 Kim and Park131 does not specifically disclose, wherein the message includes a service area restriction field, the service area restriction field indicating whether the at least one service is allowed for the WD in the non-allowed area. However, Park teach, “If the AMF determines to locate the UE in the non-allowed area or in an area that is not the allowed area, the AMF may verify the information included in the Service Request message. In case the information related to the change in the PS data off status is included in the Service Request message, the AMF may accept the Service Request message and may perform the procedure for the Service Request”, see para. 686.
Kim, Park131 and Park are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to location-based parameters and configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park in the system of Kim and Park131 to allow or denied the user terminal operation of certain services according with the subscriptions and policies of the network on services restricted areas. The motivation for doing so would have been to control and support the network operation in non-allowed areas.
Regarding claim 20 the limitations of claim 20 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wei et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220159551) which disclose(s) network search method and terminal device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/R.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471