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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 2-3 the phrase “...wherein the UE is enabled to access to the non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network….” should be corrected to read “… wherein the UE is enabled to access the non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network…” OR “...wherein the UE is enabled access to the non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network…” in order to correct an apparent typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandramouli et al. (US 20230319697 A1) in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20230397147 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chandramouli teaches a method (Method of Figs. 7-8), comprising:
selecting a non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) by a user equipment (UE) (Upon receipt of the PLMN and SNPN information, comprising at least the onboarding support indicators, UE 102 is configured, in response, to select a network, and/or network slice, associated with RAN 104. In an instance UE 102 is to select a network, and/or network slice, for which UE 102 does not have a subscription, [0097]), wherein the UE is enabled to access to the non-subscribed stand-alone non- public network (SNPN) using credentials from a credentials holder (The registration of the user equipment with the selected network slice may comprise sending a network slice specific credential to the user equipment, [0099]);
registering to the non-subscribed SNPN using the credentials supplied by the credentials holder (UE 102 transmits the selection of the network, and/or network slice, with onboarding capabilities by way of RAN 104 to AMF 108 to initiate the connection and registration process, [0097]).
However, Chandramouli does not clearly teach receiving a first set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules from the non-subscribed SNPN; and
establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session based on the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN.
In an analogous art, Kawasaki teaches receiving a first set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules from the non-subscribed SNPN (UE may receive the SNPN information included in the URSP from the network and thereby acquire the SNPN information for the UE, [0180]); and
establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session based on the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN (in the registration procedure, in a case that the UE recognizes that use of the SNPN information provision procedure is allowed, the UE may initiate the PDU session establishment procedure, [0540] and SNPN information included in the URSP, [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding system of Chandramouli with the URSP of Kawasaki to provide a method for providing information of an NPN for a UE in a case that the UE needs to connect to and be registered with the NPN in a 5GS to better serve the UE as suggested, Kawasaki [0010].
Regarding claim 4, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the method of Claim 1. Kawasaki further teaches wherein the first set of URSP rules is signaled from the non-subscribed SNPN, and wherein the UE stores the first set of URSP rules (UE may receive the SNPN information included in the URSP from the network and thereby acquire the SNPN information for the UE, [0180] and in a case that the UE stores the first list, Kawasaki [0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding system of Chandramouli with the URSP of Kawasaki to provide a method for providing information of an NPN for a UE in a case that the UE needs to connect to and be registered with the NPN in a 5GS to better serve the UE as suggested, Kawasaki [0010].
Regarding claim 9, Chandramouli teaches a User Equipment (UE) (apparatus 200 of Fig. 4), comprising: a control circuit (processor 202) that selects a non-subscribed stand- alone non-public network (SNPN) (Upon receipt of the PLMN and SNPN information, comprising at least the onboarding support indicators, UE 102 is configured, in response, to select a network, and/or network slice, associated with RAN 104. In an instance UE 102 is to select a network, and/or network slice, for which UE 102 does not have a subscription, [0097]), wherein the UE is enabled to access to the non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) using credentials from a credentials holder (The registration of the user equipment with the selected network slice may comprise sending a network slice specific credential to the user equipment, [0099]);
a registration handling circuit (memory 204) that registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using the credentials supplied by the credentials holder (UE 102 transmits the selection of the network, and/or network slice, with onboarding capabilities by way of RAN 104 to AMF 108 to initiate the connection and registration process, [0097]).
However, Chandramouli does not clearly teach a receiver that receives a first set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules from the non-subscribed SNPN; and a protocol data unit (PDU) session handling circuit that establishes a PDU session based on the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN.
In an analogous art, Kawasaki teaches a receiver that receives a first set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules from the non-subscribed SNPN (UE may receive the SNPN information included in the URSP from the network and thereby acquire the SNPN information for the UE, [0180]); and a protocol data unit (PDU) session handling circuit that establishes a PDU session based on the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN (in the registration procedure, in a case that the UE recognizes that use of the SNPN information provision procedure is allowed, the UE may initiate the PDU session establishment procedure, [0540] and SNPN information included in the URSP, [0180]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding system of Chandramouli with the URSP of Kawasaki to provide a method for providing information of an NPN for a UE in a case that the UE needs to connect to and be registered with the NPN in a 5GS to better serve the UE as suggested, Kawasaki [0010].
Regarding claim 12, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the UE of Claim 9, wherein the first set of URSP rules is signaled from the non-subscribed SNPN, and wherein the UE stores the first set of URSP rules (UE may receive the SNPN information included in the URSP from the network and thereby acquire the SNPN information for the UE, [0180] and in a case that the UE stores the first list, Kawasaki [0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding system of Chandramouli with the URSP of Kawasaki to provide a method for providing information of an NPN for a UE in a case that the UE needs to connect to and be registered with the NPN in a 5GS to better serve the UE as suggested, Kawasaki [0010].
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandramouli et al. (US 20230319697 A1) in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20230397147 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 20240224170 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the method of Claim 1.
However, Chandramouli and Kawasaki do not teach wherein the credentials holder is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).
In an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the credentials holder is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (A credential holder is an entity to which the credential belongs, such as a home operator of the terminal, a service provider, or another third-party entity, [0037] and The network may be a public network and/or a non-public network, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 3, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the method of Claim 1.
However, Chandramouli and Kawasaki do not teach wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN.
In an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN (A credential holder is an entity to which the credential belongs, such as a home operator of the terminal, a service provider, or another third-party entity, [0037] and The network may be a public network and/or a non-public network, and optionally includes at least one of the following: a standalone non-public network SNPN, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 5, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising.
However, Chandramouli and Kawasaki do not teach maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network, wherein the home network is the credential holders and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or another SNPN.
In an analogous art, Li teaches maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network, wherein the home network is the credential holders (For example, a network list controlled by the user, including network selection policy information, may be configured by the user for the terminal; or a network list controlled by a credential holder, including network selection policy information, may be obtained from a home operator, [0055]; The terminal obtains URSPs from a plurality of service providers, [0168]) and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or another SNPN (The network may be a public network and/or a non-public network, and optionally includes at least one of the following: a standalone non-public network SNPN, a public network integrated non-public network PNI-NPN, or a public network, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 7, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki and Li teaches the method of Claim 5. Li further teaches wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials (Optionally, the network selection policy information may be preconfigured in the terminal or come from a network device in a home network of the terminal or a device of a service provider to which the terminal belongs, [0109]; For example, a network list controlled by the user, including network selection policy information, may be configured by the user for the terminal; or a network list controlled by a credential holder, including network selection policy information, may be obtained from a home operator, Li [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 8, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki and Li teaches the method of Claim 5. Li further teaches wherein the second set of URSP rules is signaled from the home network holding the credentials when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials (The terminal receives a registration accept message from the AMF. The registration accept message may include network selection policy information, [0105]; the network selection policy information may be preconfigured in the terminal or come from a network device in a home network of the terminal, Li [0109]).
Regarding claim 10, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the UE of Claim 9.
However, Chandramouli and Kawasaki do not teach wherein the credentials holder is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).
In an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the credentials holder is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (A credential holder is an entity to which the credential belongs, such as a home operator of the terminal, a service provider, or another third-party entity, [0037] and The network may be a public network and/or a non-public network, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 11, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the UE of Claim 9, wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN.
However, Chandramouli and Kawasaki do not teach wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN.
In an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN (A credential holder is an entity to which the credential belongs, such as a home operator of the terminal, a service provider, or another third-party entity, [0037] and The network may be a public network and/or a non-public network, and optionally includes at least one of the following: a standalone non-public network SNPN, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 13, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki teaches the UE of Claim 9.
However, Chandramouli and Kawasaki do not teach wherein the UE maintains a second set of URSP rules from a home network, wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or another SNPN.
In an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the UE maintains a second set of URSP rules from a home network, wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or another SNPN (For example, a network list controlled by the user, including network selection policy information, may be configured by the user for the terminal; or a network list controlled by a credential holder, including network selection policy information, may be obtained from a home operator, [0055]; The terminal obtains URSPs from a plurality of service providers, [0168]) and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) or another SNPN (The network may be a public network and/or a non-public network, and optionally includes at least one of the following: a standalone non-public network SNPN, a public network integrated non-public network PNI-NPN, or a public network, [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 15, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki and Li teaches the UE of Claim 13. Li further teaches wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials (Optionally, the network selection policy information may be preconfigured in the terminal or come from a network device in a home network of the terminal or a device of a service provider to which the terminal belongs, [0109]; For example, a network list controlled by the user, including network selection policy information, may be configured by the user for the terminal; or a network list controlled by a credential holder, including network selection policy information, may be obtained from a home operator, Li [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Regarding claim 16, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki and Li teaches the UE of Claim 13. Li further teaches wherein the second set of URSP rules is signaled from the home network holding the credentials when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials (The terminal receives a registration accept message from the AMF. The registration accept message may include network selection policy information, [0105]; the network selection policy information may be preconfigured in the terminal or come from a network device in a home network of the terminal, Li [0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli and Kawasaki with the URSP of Li to provide a methos and a system for a terminal to select a suitable network for access, so that communication of the terminal is not affected as suggested, Li [0004].
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandramouli et al. (US 20230319697 A1) in view of Kawasaki et al. (US 20230397147 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 20240224170 A1) and Ninglekhu et al. (US 20220272620 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki and Li teaches the method of Claim 5.
However, Chandramouli, Kawasaki and Li do not teach wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
In an analogous art, Ninglekhu teaches (“If the UE fails to establish a PDU session with any of the Route Selection Descriptors, it tries other URSP rules in the order of Rule Precedences with matching Traffic descriptors, except the URSP rule with the “match-all” Traffic descriptor, if any. The UE shall not use the UE Local Configuration in this case.”, [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli, Kawasaki and Li with the rules of Ninglekhu to provide a method and a system to determine that a policy is needed from a network for a particular type of traffic or network connection, to transmit a non-access stratum (NAS) message to the network to request a policy, the message indicating what type of traffic or network the policy is required, and to receive a response from the network as suggested, Ninglekhu [0003].
Regarding claim 14, Chandramouli as modified by Kawasaki and Li teaches the UE of Claim 13.
However, Chandramouli, Kawasaki and Li do not teach wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
In an analogous art, Ninglekhu teaches (“If the UE fails to establish a PDU session with any of the Route Selection Descriptors, it tries other URSP rules in the order of Rule Precedences with matching Traffic descriptors, except the URSP rule with the “match-all” Traffic descriptor, if any. The UE shall not use the UE Local Configuration in this case.”, [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the onboarding of Chandramouli, Kawasaki and Li with the rules of Ninglekhu to provide a method and a system to determine that a policy is needed from a network for a particular type of traffic or network connection, to transmit a non-access stratum (NAS) message to the network to request a policy, the message indicating what type of traffic or network the policy is required, and to receive a response from the network as suggested, Ninglekhu [0003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qiao et al. (US 20200359439 A1): Wireless communications for asymmetric services are described. Asymmetric services (e.g., for downlink or uplink) may be associated with each other. Resources may be configured based on an association of asymmetric services.
Keller et al. (US 12232188 B2): There is provided mechanisms for establishing a communication session with a local serving network. A method is performed by a terminal device. The method comprises obtaining an indication of traffic to be communicated. The traffic is associated with a traffic descriptor. The method comprises selecting a URSP rule for the traffic to be communicated in a communication session with the local serving network. The URSP rule is selected in accordance with the traffic descriptor and in accordance with a validity condition for the communication session. The validity condition at least pertains to network support for IMS in the local serving network. The method comprises establishing a communication session with the local serving network for communicating the traffic according to the selected URSP rule.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE M LOUIS-FILS whose telephone number is (571)270-0671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/NICOLE M LOUIS-FILS/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641