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 1-2,5-8,11,15-16,19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2021/0211861 to Ramile in view of U.S. Pub. 2022/0377548 to Rajadurai and U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0038898 to Stojanovski.
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 amendments which teach 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 and the “response to arguments” section below.
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 5 and 19, which recite “wherein the second message comprises a timer time value, and wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions to cause the terminal to set, based on the timer time value, the timer”, see section [0048] of Ramile which teaches that the AMF or UDM determines and sends the “quarantine time”, which would be in the second message, 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 11, which recites “further determining, based on the third message, to reject the registration of the terminal with the non-public network”, as described above, the subscription information in Ramile is used to accept or deny the registration and Rajadurai teaches the NPNs per se, therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-3-26 have been considered but are not persuasive and/or are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that begins on page 11, that section [0174] of Rajadurai does not teach the feature of “the UE updating the forbidden list…”, because Rajadurai does not teach “that the UE independently updates its own list…”. In response to this point, the Examiner respectfully sets forth that section [0174] explicitly teaches that the UE performs the action/step of moving the rejected network into the forbidden list. The last sentence of section [0174] is reproduced below:
On receiving the allowed list of CAG cells/NPNs 104, and the reject message, the UE 106 determines the protected reject mode and moves the CAG ID of the requested CAG cell/NPN 104 to a forbidden list by performing a legacy procedure of multiple attempts.
Even if Rajadurai receives an allowed list from the network, it still meets the claim language, as the received list is an “allowed list” and Rajadurai does teach updating a forbidden list.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that begins on page 12, that “Stojanovski does not select a network from the forbidden list” it is noted that the claim language does not actually recite that feature as argued. The claim language recites “selecting a network based on a forbidden list”. As Stojanovski teaches selecting a network which is not forbidden, that is selecting a network “based on (that network not being in) the forbidden list”. Therefore, it appears that Stojanovski meets the current claim language. Also, regarding the feature of “updating the forbidden list”, this feature of updating the forbidden list is found in Rajadurai and not in Stojanovski. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached on (571)272-4177. 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