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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2,6-8,15-16, 21-23,30 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0211861 to Ramile in view of U.S. 2022/0377548 to Rajadurai, U.S. 2022/0038898 to Stojanovski and U.S. 2019/0357116 to Huang-Fu.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Ramile teaches a method/terminal for:
sending to an access management network element in a first non-public network, a first message requesting to register the terminal with the first non-public network (see step 301 in Fig. 3 the “Registration Request” sent from the terminal (UE) as described in section [0053]);
receiving, from the access management network element, a second message comprising indication information, wherein the indication information indicates that access of the terminal to the first non-public network is forbidden (see step 315 in Fig. 3 as described in section [0061], which teaches that TA3 is “not allowed” or forbidden).
Regarding the step of claim 1, which recites:
“updating, based on the indication information, a forbidden network list of the terminal to obtain an updated forbidden network list comprising information about the first non-public network”, as Ramile teaches that the AMF may update the forbidden list (not the UE updating the list), Rajadurai is added. It is also noted that the networks in Ramile are PLMN, which are “public” and not “non-public”, so Rajadurai is also added to teach the use of both non-public networks (or NPNs) and public PLMNs.
In an analogous art, Rajadurai teaches a UE sending registration requests to an AMF and UDM (see Fig. 5b). As described in sections [0049] to [0051], Rajadurai teaches that the types of networks include both PLMNs and “private networks” NPNs. As shown in Figs. 6-8 (steps 608b, 710a), Rajadurai teaches that upon receiving a rejection to the UE registration, a list of allowed network identifiers is sent to the UE, where sections [0174] and [0200] teach that the UE then moves the requested/rejected network identifier into its forbidden list or blacklist, as recited.
Therefore, as both Ramile and Rajadurai teach a UE registering with AMFs and UDMs, forbidden lists, and receiving rejection messages, and as Rajadurai teaches that the UE itself updates its forbidden list (which include NPNs), it would have been obvious to modify Ramile to have the UE update its internal forbidden list as this reduces wasting resources, as if the UE has the updated forbidden list stored within itself it will not attempt to register with networks it already knows will not accept its registration (as opposed to trying to register and failing when the forbidden list is stored within the network AMF or UDM).
Regarding the feature of claim 1 reciting:
selecting, based on the updated forbidden network list, a second non-public network for registration,
although section [0149] of Rajadurai teach the UE receiving a list of networks (from the rejecting network, which include NPNs [0049]-[0054]) and sections [0150] to [0153] subsequently teach that the rejecting core network may control the handover of the UE to the next VPLMN (recited “second selected network”), as the second (target) network in Rajadurai is not defined as an NPN network per se, Stojanovski is added.
In an analogous art, Stojanovski teaches a roaming UE which includes a ranked list of non-public networks (NPNs). For example, section [0019] of Stojanovski teaches “In case UE is in the coverage of multiple NPNs each of which provide access to SP #X, the UE selects the NPN-ID that ranks highest in the “Equivalent Home Network” list”.
Therefore, as Ramile/Rajadurai teach a UE removing a rejected network off the network list (and putting the rejected network on a forbidden list) and also handing the UE over to the next (second) VPLMN network, and as Stojanovski teaches that the network list of NPNs is ranked, it would have been obvious to modify Ramile/Rajadurai to handover the UE to the next highest ranked NPN (as in Stojanovski), for the reasons in Rajadurai and Stojanovski, as after receiving a network rejection, it is conventional to then subsequently access the next most prioritized network choice.
Regarding the feature of claim 1 reciting:
wherein the second non-public network is not recorded in the updated forbidden network list, this feature and/or concept would be taught by the references (such as Rajadurai) as the second network is not in the forbidden list (as recited).
For example, the claim recites updating the forbidden list to include the first network, as it is indicated as rejected/forbidden by the first network itself. The second network (in sections [0150] to [0153] Rajadurai) is simply the next available network (or next highest priority network in the currently allowed and/or available list of networks). See also section [0174] of Rajadurai, which teaches an “allowed list of CAG/NPN cells” and moving the rejected network CAG/NPN cell into the “forbidden list”. Therefore, a network NPN in Rajadurai is either in one list or the other. Therefore, selecting a next “second” network (after rejection in the first network) from the currently available “allowed” list in Rajadurai meets the newly added language “wherein the second network is not in the forbidden list”, as now recited.
Regarding the feature which recites that all of the recited steps are performed “by the terminal”, see the cited sections above, which are performed by the terminal (UE) and regarding the “updating by the terminal the forbidden list”, see section [0174] of Rajadurai.
Regarding the amendments to claim 1 which now recite:
a timer time value, wherein the second message indicates that registration of the terminal with the first non-public network is rejected;
setting, by the terminal, a timer based on the timer time value
deleting, by the terminal when the timer expires, the first information about the first non-public network from the updated forbidden network list,
wherein, after the first information about the first non-public network is deleted from the updated forbidden network list, the terminal is permitted to subsequently request registration with the first non-public network, Huang-Fu is added.
In an analogous art, Huang-Fu teaches a UE which receives a rejection from a network. For example, section [0012] teaches that in response to a rejection message the UE starts a timer and adds the rejected network into the forbidden list, and upon expiration of the timer, the network is taken off the forbidden list (as now recited in the amendment). See also section [0033], which teaches that the timer value may come from the network in the rejection message
Therefore, as Ramile/Rajadurai teach a UE removing a rejected network off the network list and putting the rejected network on a forbidden list, and as Huang-Fu teaches that the rejection message includes a timer for removing a rejected network from the forbidden list (as now recited), it would have been obvious to modify the Ramile/Rajadurai combination to include the teachings of Huang-Fu, for the reasons in Huang-Fu, as after the time period of being forbidden expires, it is conventional to place the forbidden network back on the available networks list.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, which recite “wherein the first non-public network supports interworking with a public network”, see section [0049] of Rajadurai, which teaches that the NPNs are associated with and are provided “in conjunction with” (which is the recited “interworked”) PLMNs, as recited.
Regarding claims 6 and 21 which recite the steps described above in Ramile, from the point of view of the AMF, (see the rejection of claim 1 above, and specifically) see step 301 in Ramile (which is the first “receiving from a terminal…” step in claim 6) see steps 303/305 in Ramile which is the “receiving from a UDM a third message” step in claim 6), and see step 315 in Ramile and steps 608b and 710a and sections [0174] and [0200] of Rajadurai, which teach the AMF (determining based on third message) and sending to the terminal the indication of rejection and a list of allowed networks). Therefore, the combination of Ramile and Rajadurai, would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Regarding claims 7 and 22, which recite “wherein the third message comprises subscription data of the terminal, wherein the subscription data comprises second indication information, and wherein the second indication information indicates that the terminal can access only the public network or cannot access the non-public network”, see section [0054] of Ramile which teaches that the AMF receives the subscription data from the UDM, which would be the “third message”, as recited.
Regarding claims 8 and 23, which recite “wherein the second indication information comprises a supported network list of the terminal, and wherein the supported network list does not comprise information about the non-public network”, as described above, see the supported and/or allowed list as described in sections [0174] and [0200] of Rajadurai, which “does not include the network which has been forbidden”, as recited.
Regarding claim 30, which recites “further comprising further updating, by the terminal based on the indication information without using a network-provided allowed list of non-public networks, the forbidden network list”, see sections [0008] and [0023] of Huang-Fu, which teach using a forbidden list stored in the SIM of the UE.
Regarding claim 31, which recites “wherein the selecting comprises preventing the terminal from automatically or manually selecting the first non-public network based on the updated forbidden network list”, as described above, Ramile, Rajadurai and Huang-Fu, teach that the first forbidden network is not selected, as recited.
Regarding claim 34, which recites “wherein sending the first message comprises sending the first message to the access management network element through an access network device in the first non-public network”, as described above, see Ramile and Rajadurai, which teach that the message sent to network element go through the eNB (“access network device”), as recited.
Claims 9-10 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 6 and 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0264504 to Ianev.
Regarding claims 9 and 24, which recite “wherein the third message comprises third indication information, indicating that subscription data of the terminal has not been successfully been obtained”, as Ramile and Rajadurai do not explicitly teach “cause values” for “unsuccessfully obtaining the subscription”, Ianev is added.
In an analogous art, Ianev teaches a wireless system which receives registration requests directed to an AMF and UDM (see Fig. 5b). As described in sections [0086] to [0091], Ianevi teaches that the cause value of the registration attempt is due to conditions such as “no subscription” or “subscription expired”, which are indications that the “subscription has not been successfully obtained”.
Therefore, as Ramile/Rajadurai teach a UE registering with AMFs and UDMs, where the UDM stores subscription data, and as Ianev teaches that the subscription data is used to generate the cause value of rejection, it would have been obvious to modify Ramile/Rajadurai to have the cause value included, as this gives the UE information regarding the reasons for network unavailability.
Regarding claims 10 and 25, which recite “wherein the third message further comprises a cause value of the unsuccessfully obtaining the subscription data, and wherein the cause value indicates that the terminal is not allowed to access the non-public network”, see the cause values in sections [0089] to [0091] of Ianev.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2007/0287419 to Wang.
Regarding claim 26, which recites “wherein updating the forbidden network list comprises: adding first information identifying the first non-public network to the forbidden network list to obtain the updated forbidden network list; and associating a record item with the first information, wherein the record item comprises a first indicator indicating that access is forbidden and a second indicator indicating that access is allowed”, Wang is added.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches a UE which includes a forbidden PLMN list (see section [0023]). As described in section [0024], Wang teaches that a 1 bit indicates a forbidden network type (PLMN and access technology) and a 0 bit indicates “not forbidden” (where the 1 and 0 bits are the recited “first and second indicators”).
Therefore, as Ramile/Rajadurai teach UEs with forbidden network lists and as Wang teaches that the use of bit indicators as recited, it would have been obvious to modify Ramile/Rajadurai to use the bit indicators of Wang, as the forbidden lists in both Ramile and Rajadurai would be stored as bits and as Wang teaches the conventionality of using bit indicators in a forbidden list.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0066235 to Bhat.
Regarding claim 27, which recites “further comprising starting, based on the indication information, a timer”, although Ramile teaches receiving the indication information and section [0049] teaches a backoff “quarantine timer” which would implicitly keep the rejected and/or forbidden network on the list for a certain time and then remove the network from the list, however, to more explicitly show starting a timer, Bhat is added.
In an analogous art, Bhat teaches a roaming UE sending registration requests to a PLMN (see Fig. 2). As described in section [0011], Bhat teaches that when the UE receives a response that PLMN B is forbidden, a timer is started, and the PLMN B cannot be selected until the timer expires.
Therefore, as Ramile/Rajadurai teach a UE removing a forbidden network off the list after a “quarantine time” and as Bhat teaches that the UE starts a “Forbidden PLMN list deletion timer’, which when the timer expires, makes a forbidden network available again, (i.e. deletes from the forbidden list as now recited), it would have been obvious to modify Ramile to have the UE instigate a timer, for the reasons stated in Ramile and as for the reasons taught in section [0011] of Bhat.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, which recite “further comprising deleting the first information about the first non-public network from the updated forbidden network list when the timer is expired”, see section [0011] of Bhat, as above.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2023/0131915 to Faccin.
Regarding claim 32, which recites “wherein the first non-public network is a standalone non-public network (SNPN) that supports roaming interworking with a public land mobile network (PLMN), wherein the first message comprises an identifier of the non-SNPN terminal, and wherein the identifier comprises a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) or a subscriber concealed identifier (SUCI)”, Faccin is added.
In an analogous art, Faccin teaches a UE sending registration requests to both SNPN and PLMN networks. As described in sections [0119] to [0120], Faccin teaches that the UE includes a SUPI when regeisterign with a network.
Therefore, as Ramile/Rajadurai teach a UE sending the messages to access and register with SNPN networks, and as Faccin teaches that the UE sends a SUPI, it would have been obvious to modify the Ramile/ Rajadurai combination to also include a SUPI, for the reasons stated in Faccin, as this is a conventionally used identifier when accessing different networks.
Regarding claim 33, which recites “wherein the SUPI or the SUCI comprises a home PLMN (HPLMN) identifier of the terminal”, see section [0135] of Faccin, which teaches that the SUPI would be from the home PLMN, as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached on (571)270-3647. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights