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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14-18, 20-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 14, 15, 20, 22, 24-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by RAJADURAI et al. (US 20200221281 A1, hereinafter Rajadurai).
Regarding claims 1, 20, and 25 Rajadurai discloses:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a home public-line mobile network of the UE, a first message including a preferred network list of stand-alone non-private networks (SNPNs) for roaming, the preferred network list of SNPNs being determined based on a location of the UE and belonging to different SNPN providers; (paragraph [0214], “the preferred PLMN list or PLMN list is a list of PLMN's on which the UE 100 is preferred to be roamed by the HPLMN 300 in the current physical location of the UE 100. This list can be in the form of operator preferred PLMN list etc. The term preferred PLMN list and PLMN list are used interchangeably and means the same.” And paragraph [0133], “the AMF 210/SEAF 220 sends the received protected PLMN list(s) transparently to the UE 100 over the NAS message (i.e., authentication request message). In an embodiment, the AMF 210/SEAF 220 selects the AV, if receives multiple AVs, and sends the corresponding protected PLMN list(s) transparently to UE 100 over the NAS message.” And fig. 2-4. In figure 2 it discloses the wider flow of messages and signals (from UE to home PLMN and vice versa). In figure 3 and 4, Rajadurai goes into more specific details on the flow of the NAS message and the preferred list, the UE still receives the list from the HPLMN (more specifically from its components the AUSF and UDM). The preferred PLMN disclosed within Rajadurai are considered Standalone non-private networks as the components (AUSF, UDM, AMF, SEAF) are standalone 5G architecture and PLMN are public/non-private).
selecting, by the UE, a target SNPN from the preferred network list of SNPNs for roaming; (Paragraphs [0134-0137], “if the security check is passed and serving PLMN is not the Preferred PLMN then, the UE 100 sends the registration reject message to the VPLMN 200… if the security check is passed and the serving PLMN is in the preferred PLMN list, the UE 100 sends the registration accept message to the VPLMN 200.” These paragraphs alongside figures 3 and 4 discloses the selection of the next PLMN in the list.)
and accessing, by the UE, the target SNPN (Paragraphs [0134-0137], “if the security check is passed and serving PLMN is not the Preferred PLMN then, the UE 100 sends the registration reject message to the VPLMN 200… if the security check is passed and the serving PLMN is in the preferred PLMN list, the UE 100 sends the registration accept message to the VPLMN 200.” These paragraphs alongside figures 3 and 4 discloses the selection of the next PLMN in the list and the UE accessing it.)
Specifically regarding claim 20 Rajadurai discloses:
processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Paragraph [0222], “the processor 140 is configured to execute instructions stored in the memory 130 and to perform various processes.” And paragraph [0223], “In addition, the memory 130 may, in some examples, be considered a non-transitory storage medium.”)
Regarding claim 14 Rajadurai discloses:
the first message being received in a dedicated network control message. (Paragraph [0133], “the AMF 210/SEAF 220 sends the received protected PLMN list(s) transparently to the UE 100 over the NAS message (i.e., attach request message). In an embodiment, the AMF 210/SEAF 220 selects the AV, if receives multiple AVs, and sends the corresponding protected PLMN list(s) transparently to UE 100 over the NAS message.” The list configured by the HPLMN is sent through the VPLMN to the UE in a dedicated network control message (NAS message).)
Regarding claim 15 Rajadurai discloses:
the first message being received in a policy configuration message. (Paragraph [0133], “the AMF 210/SEAF 220 sends the received protected PLMN list(s) transparently to the UE 100 over the NAS message (i.e., attach request message). In an embodiment, the AMF 210/SEAF 220 selects the AV, if receives multiple AVs, and sends the corresponding protected PLMN list(s) transparently to UE 100 over the NAS message.” And Figures 3 and 4. The HPLMN as disclosed above creates a list in which there are preferred PLMN for the UE when it roams. This message is transmitted through the VPLMN to the UE as disclosed in figures 3 and 4 in the form of a NAS message. Meaning that the MAS message is both a policy configuration message and a dedicated network control message.)
Regarding claims 22, 24 and 27 Rajadurai discloses:
receiving an indication indicating the UE to switch to an SNPN of the preferred network list of SNPNs. (Paragraph [0047], “the HPLMN triggers the UE to initiate an initial registration procedure by explicitly providing a NAS message, the UE initiates an initial registration procedure and the UE obtains steering information representing the preferred PLMN based on the NAS message.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajadurai in view of Forssell et al. (US 20100142478 A1, hereinafter Forssell).
Regarding claim 16 Rajadurai does not disclose:
the first message further comprising a time window duration for completing or starting a network switch process switching from a current network to the target SNPN.
Forssell discloses:
the first message further comprising a time window duration for completing or starting a network switch process switching from a current network to the target SNPN. (Paragraph [0035], “The candidate access network list may be provided to the mobile node in the command message. Upon receiving the list, the wireless device starts preparing for handover to one of the candidate access networks. Upon receipt of a command message, the wireless device leaves a currently used access network either immediately or a reasonable time after setting up a connection to a new access network, for ensuring smooth handover. Alternatively, the network may indicate a delay to the wireless device that defines a condition which indicates how long the wireless device is allowed to use current access network before leaving the access network. An example of the condition may be time or receipt of a signal.” A time duration for which the UE needs to start or complete the network switching process.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the NAS control message of Rajadurai to incorporate Forssell’s time indication to start or complete the switching process. One would have been motivated to do this “for ensuring smooth handover” (Forssell, paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 17 Rajadurai does not disclose:
when the time window duration is equal to zero, the UE starts the network switch process as soon as possible.
Forssell discloses:
when the time window duration is equal to zero, the UE starts the network switch process as soon as possible. (Paragraph [0035], “The candidate access network list may be provided to the mobile node in the command message. Upon receiving the list, the wireless device starts preparing for handover to one of the candidate access networks. Upon receipt of a command message, the wireless device leaves a currently used access network either immediately or a reasonable time after setting up a connection to a new access network, for ensuring smooth handover. Alternatively, the network may indicate a delay to the wireless device that defines a condition which indicates how long the wireless device is allowed to use current access network before leaving the access network. An example of the condition may be time or receipt of a signal.” Upon receiving the command message the UE starts preparing for handover immediately.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the NAS control message of Rajadurai to incorporate Forssell’s time indication to start or complete the switching process. One would have been motivated to do this “for ensuring smooth handover” (Forssell, paragraph [0035]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajadurai in view of WANG (US 20210266708 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 18 Rajadurai discloses:
the first message comprising a network switch policy to assist the UE to make a switch decision (Paragraph [0133], “the AMF 210/SEAF 220 sends the received protected PLMN list(s) transparently to the UE 100 over the NAS message (i.e., attach request message). In an embodiment, the AMF 210/SEAF 220 selects the AV, if receives multiple AVs, and sends the corresponding protected PLMN list(s) transparently to UE 100 over the NAS message.” And Figures 3 and 4. The HPLMN as disclosed above creates a list in which there are preferred PLMN for the UE when it roams (assist UE to make switch decision). This message is transmitted through the VPLMN to the UE as disclosed in figures 3 and 4 in the form of a NAS message. Meaning that the MAS message is both a policy configuration message and a dedicated network control message.)
Rajadurai does not disclose:
the network switch policy comprising a performance threshold or a location trigger for the UE to start a network switch process, and the performance threshold comprising an application level performance
Wang discloses:
the network switch policy comprising a performance threshold or a location trigger for the UE to start a network switch process, and the performance threshold comprising an application level performance. (Paragraph [0184], “The AMF sends the request to the UE by using a NAS message in response to that the UE is in a connected state, where the request includes the type LDR of the location report request, the type of the trigger event, and related parameters. The LDR refers to a location deferred report type. The trigger event refers to a radio signal strength.” And paragraph [0186], “If the UE supports the event type and agrees with the trigger event, the UE sends a NAS message carrying a reception acknowledgment message of the location report request to the AMF. If the UE disagrees with the trigger event, the UE sends a NAS message carrying a reject message of the location report request to the AMF. For example, the UE supports measuring radio signal strength (the event type), and agrees with the trigger event, which in this case includes the measured radio signal strength being below a threshold.” NAS messages are core level control messages that covers application level performances. Disclosed above the UE receives a NAS message to monitor signal strength such that it does not fall below a threshold. Further one of ordinary skill in the art could replace the signal strength trigger for UE location trigger.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the NAS message triggers of Wang with the teaching of Rajadurai’s PLMN switching using NAS messages. One would have been motivated to do this to improve “the flexibility of parameter configuration policy” (Wang, paragraph [0010]).
Claims 21, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajadurai in view of Edge (US 20190313209 A1, hereinafter Edge).
Regarding claims 21, 23 and 26 Rajadurai not disclose:
reporting, by the UE to the home public-line mobile network, information related to the location of the UE.
Edge discloses:
reporting, by the UE to the home public-line mobile network, information related to the location of the UE. (paragraph [0099], “the UE 105 sends a report to the HPLMN/VPLMN core network 150 for the detected trigger event(s) and may include a location estimate and/or downlink location measurements if available to the UE” While Rajadurai discloses that the HPLMN/system knows the location of the UE (for example [0214], “the UE 100 is preferred to be roamed by the HPLMN 300 in the current physical location of the UE 100.” And [0217], “the UE 100 wants to obtain the protected preferred PLMN list in current UE location from the HPLMN 300.”) They did not explicitly have the UE reporting its location as disclosed in Edge.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rajadurai in view of Edge to incorporate UE location report. One would have been motivated to do this so that the HPLMN can accurately update the preferred PLMN list.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479