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 Amendment
The amendment made dated does not contain any new matter, and has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4/15/2026 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.
Applicant argues that the newly amended claims are not taught by the Park et al. reference.
Examiner would like to introduce the newly cited reference of Kunz et al. and asserts that said reference does disclose the newly amended claims.
Due to the broadness of the claim language, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance and are rejected a shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 50, 54-61, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2019/0029065; hereinafter Park) in view of Kunz et al. (US 2020/0344678; hereinafter Kunz).
Regarding claim 50, Park discloses a mobile terminal, comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 1 and 4, UE); and
at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the mobile terminal at least to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, from a first mobile network at a location, a first message indicative of rejection of access of said mobile terminal to said first mobile network, the first message comprising network selection assistance information and an indication indicating a cause of rejection of access of said mobile terminal to a first mobile network ([0597]-[0600]: the network providing the UE a Reject Cause indicating that the S-NSSAI is not allowed within the current registration area; [0598]: the network may also include information element within the Reject message to include an allowed S-NSSAI, in addition to the rejection message, for the UE to select);
Park does disclose the limitation of
selecting a second mobile network for the mobile terminal to access based on said network selection assistance information comprised in said first message ([0598]: the network may also include an allowed S-NSSAI, in addition to the rejection message, for the UE to select), but can be unclear about the limitation of
after receiving the first message, determining whether said first message is valid or invalid; and
in an instance the determining determined that the first message is valid:
selecting a second mobile network for the mobile terminal to access based on said network selection assistance information comprised in said first message.
Kunz in a similar endeavor does disclose the limitation of
after receiving the first message, determining whether said first message is valid or invalid ([0056]-[0057]: wherein after the registration request, the UE and AMF determine whether they can trust and verify one another); and
in an instance the determining determined that the first message is valid ([0056]-[0057]: using encryption key to for communication provides validation to said exchanged communication and information such as device ID associating with encrypted SUPI):
selecting a second mobile network for the mobile terminal to access based on said network selection assistance information comprised in said first message (Park [0598] discloses the network may also include an allowed S-NSSAI, in addition to the rejection message, for the UE to select; Kunz [0058]: the reject message includes an indication of a network to which the UE belongs and can register with, which the UE does select and sends a new registration request).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Kunz’s disclosure to further provide secure and valid encrypted exchange of communication and communication information to improve security to the communication system.
Regarding claim 54, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein the operations further comprise:
sending a second message including information indicating a present location of said mobile terminal ([0597]-[0599]: location included in messages).
Regarding claim 55, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein said first message comprises a registration reject message, a service reject message, or a deregistration request message ([0598]: registration reject message).
Regarding claim 56, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 55, wherein said second message comprises a registration request message ([0600]:reattempt request message).
Regarding claim 57, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 54, wherein said information indicating said present location of said mobile terminal includes at least one of:
geographic coordinates of said mobile terminal obtained from a global navigation satellite system;
a cell identifier of a radio cell said mobile terminal is connected to ([0157]: UE updating its location with the network); or
a list of mobile network identifiers, wherein each respective mobile network identifier included in the list of mobile network identifiers is associated with an indication of a respective signal strength detected when receiving said respective mobile network identifier.
Regarding claims 58, 60 and 61, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein the at selecting the second mobile network to be accessed based on said information comprised in said first message comprises:
deprioritizing said first mobile network or a mobile network of a country to which said first mobile network belongs from candidate mobile networks that said mobile terminal is allowed to access from said location of said mobile terminal ([0599]-[0600]: creating a rejected NSSAI list); and
selecting said second mobile network from said candidate mobile networks ([0598]: the network may also include an allowed S-NSSAI, in addition to the rejection message, for the UE to select).
Regarding claim 59, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein said network selection assistance information comprises information identifying mobile networks to which said mobile terminal is not allowed to access from said location of said mobile terminal ([0599]-[0600]: creating a rejected NSSAI list).
Regarding claim 64, Park discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 59, wherein the operations further comprise:
disabling use of said network selection assistance information in an instance a predetermined network selection assistance information endurance condition is satisfied ([0599]-[0600]: creating a rejected NSSAI list for an instance of time period).
Claim(s) 51-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kunz in further view of Lee (US 2019/0230556).
Regarding claim 51 Park discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein the determining whether said first message is valid when said indication indicating said cause of said rejection of access of said mobile terminal to said first mobile network is indicating that said mobile terminal is not allowed to access to said first mobile network from said location of said mobile terminal comprises:
detecting whether said first message is integrity protected;
based on determining that said first message is not integrity protected:
determining said first message is invalid; and
ignoring said first message.
However, Lee in combination does disclose the limitations wherein the determining whether said first message is valid when said indication indicating said cause of said rejection of access of said mobile terminal to said first mobile network is indicating that said mobile terminal is not allowed to access ([0210]: reject cause) to said first mobile network from said location of said mobile terminal comprises:
detecting whether (or not) said first message is integrity protected ([0191]: the message may be integrity protected; this claim only requires one of either the message is protected or not protected and not necessary both);
based on determining that said first message is not integrity protected:
determining said first message is invalid; and
ignoring said first message.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s disclosure to provide security to the communication.
Regarding claim 52, Park in view of Lee discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein the determining whether said first message is valid when said indication indicating said cause of said rejection of access of said mobile terminal to said first mobile network is indicating that said mobile terminal is not allowed to access to said first mobile network from said location of said mobile terminal comprises:
detecting whether said first message is received via Third-Generation-Partnership- Project (3GPP) access (Lee: [0183]: the message may be received within 3GPP system; this claim only requires one of either the message is protected or not protected and not necessary both;
based on determining that said first message is not received via Third- Generation-Partnership-Project access:
determining said first message is invalid; and
performing abnormal case handling of said first message.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s disclosure to provide security to the communication.
Regarding claim 53, Park in view of Lee discloses the mobile terminal according to claim 50, wherein the determining whether said first message is valid when said indication indicating said cause of said rejection of access of said mobile terminal to said first mobile network is indicating that said mobile terminal is not allowed to access to said first mobile network from said location of said mobile terminal comprises:
detecting whether said first message is received from a standalone non-public network (Lee: [0183]: non-3GPP access); and
based on determining said first message is received from a standalone non- public network:
determining said first message is invalid (Lee: [0183]: wherein the 5G-GUTI is invalid; Park: [0525]), and
performing abnormal case handling of said first message (Lee:[0183]: UE may act appropriately and provide a mapping of the request NSSAI).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s disclosure to provide security to the communication.
Claim(s) 62, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kunz in further view of Gunaratnam et al. (US 2005/0107082; hereinafter Gunaratnam).
Regarding claims 62 and 63, Park discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the mobile terminal according to claim 60, wherein said deprioritizing comprises:
displaying on a display of the mobile terminal, a mobile country code of each of said mobile networks to which said mobile terminal is not allowed to access from said location of said mobile terminal together with an indication that said mobile terminal is allowed to access from said location of said mobile terminal.
However, Gunaratnam does disclose the limitations wherein said deprioritizing comprises:
displaying on a display of the mobile terminal, a mobile country code of each of said mobile networks to which said mobile terminal is not allowed to access from said location of said mobile terminal together with an indication that said mobile terminal is allowed to access from said location of said mobile terminal (Abstract; [0007], [0018]: list of MCC).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Gunaratnam’s disclosure to establish communication when crossing country borders.
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 CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights