Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/021,831

NETWORK DEVICE, AND METHOD BY WHICH DEVICE TRANSMITS TERMINAL LOCATION INFORMATION

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 17, 2023
Examiner
HONG, DUNG
Art Unit
2643
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Sk Telecom Co., LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
643 granted / 769 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+28.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
26 currently pending
Career history
795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.7%
-34.3% vs TC avg
§103
56.9%
+16.9% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 769 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION This is in response to applicant's communication filed on 02/17/2023, wherein: Claim 1-12 are pending. 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, 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 1-3, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200047108 A) in view of Prakash (US 20210144619 A1). Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a network device (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 – SMF) comprising: an information providing unit configured to provide the information of the specific terminal to a network node of a user plane associated with a session of the specific terminal (Fig. 2 and Fig. 4: UPF) , so that the network node is capable of using the information when processing traffic of the session (Fig. 2 and ¶0074-0075 disclose SMF sending session control message including information such as UE ID, Slice ID, PDU session ID to create data session – i.e. processing traffic). However the reference is silent on details about the information including location information and a confirmation unit configured to confirm location information of a specific terminal. Prakash discloses a confirmation unit configured to confirm location information of a specific terminal and network slide information including location information (Fig. 6-7, ¶0066-0067, ¶0080-0085, and claim 17 disclose network slice mapping – i.e. confirming - based on Tracking Area Identity TAI information – i.e. location information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Lee to incorporate tracking area information for identifying network slice from Prakash because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known method to identifying network slice effectively. Regarding claim 2, the combined teaching of Lee and Prakash discloses the network device of claim 1, wherein the location information comprises at least one of tracking area identity (TAI), NR cell global identifier (NCGI), E-UTRAN CGI (ECGI), GPS-based location, and access time information as area information about an access location of the specific terminal (Prakash – ¶0066-0067 and ¶0080-0085 disclose location information including tracking area identity). The combined teaching would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 1. Regarding claim 3, the combined teaching of Lee and Prakash discloses the network device of claim 1, wherein the location information comprises at least one of UE radio capability (UE RC), frequency information, band information, and network slice (NW slice) information (Prakash - Fig. 6-7, ¶0066-0067, and ¶0080-0085 disclose network slice information as location information) as radio information about an access frequency of the specific terminal. The combined teaching of Lee and Prakash would be obvious for the same reason indicated in claim 1. Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses a network device comprising: a controller configured to perform traffic control using a information when processing traffic of a session of the specific terminal (Fig. 2 and ¶0074-0075 disclose SMF sending session control message including information such as UE ID, Slice ID, PDU session ID to create data session – i.e. processing traffic). However the reference is silent on details about the information including location information and a confirmation unit configured to confirm location information of a specific terminal. Prakash discloses a confirmation unit configured to confirm location information of a specific terminal and network slide information including location information (Fig. 6-7, ¶0066-0067, ¶0080-0085, and claim 17 disclose network slice mapping – i.e. confirming - based on Tracking Area Identity TAI information – i.e. location information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed the invention, to modify the invention of Lee to incorporate tracking area information for identifying network slice from Prakash because doing so would make use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP §2141 -III) to utilize known method to identifying network slice effectively. Regarding claim 9, the scope and content of the claim recites a terminal location information transmission method performed by a network device of claim 1, therefore, being addressed as in claim 1. Regarding claim 11, the scope and content of the claim recites a terminal location information use method performed by a network device of claim 7, therefore, being addressed as in claim 7. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4-6, 8, 10, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7928. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. 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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /DUNG HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 17, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598460
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DYNAMIC AUTHORIZATION OF PRIORITY-BASED SESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587909
RECONFIGURATION FOR LOWER LAYER MOBILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581372
NETWORK-TO-NETWORK REDIRECTION AND PING-PONG IMPROVEMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574886
OPTIMIZED REGISTRATION AND DEREGISTRATION MESSAGING WITH THE SMSF AND UDM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568408
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, BASE STATION, MOBILE STATION, MANAGEMENT APPARATUS, HANDOVER CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+28.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 769 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month