DETAILED ACTION
The office action is in response to the application filed received on March 19, 2026 as RCE.
The RCE application was received on March 19, 2026.
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on Dec. 4, 2025, Oct. 24, 2025, Jan. 3, 2025, Oct. 25, 2024, May 5, 2024, Dec. 1, 2023, Nov. 26, 2023, and Sept. 6, 2023 and references listed have been considered by the examiner.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 03/19/26 have been considered for examination. Claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application.
With regard to double patenting, in the arguments filed 03/19/26 (see page 5-6 of Remarks) , since both applications are pending, Applicants will file terminal disclaimer once the double patenting becomes the only rejection. Thus, all the rejections under double patenting are maintained in the current office action, as shown in the previous office action.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/19/26 (see pages 6-9 of Remarks) in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of the reasons set forth below. Therefore, the 103 rejections are maintained in this instant office action except the amendments.
Regarding claim 1 and 9, Applicant argued:
Regarding the part of the claim 1 and 9:
i) There is no teaching of "determining that the first set of URSP rules is elevated with a higher priority precedence for rule evaluation than the second set of URSP rules when matching traffic of an application to a PDU session."
Under the teaching of Sriganesh, Sriganesh [0139]-[0156] is about network selection, not URSP conflict resolution. The network selection based on the element has nothing to do with URSP priority: the UE compares a first URSP rule set from a non-subscribed SNPN against a second URSP rule set from a home network and determines that one URSP set has higher priority than the other for establishing a PDU session. The Office Action's statement that "their URSP can follow the priority' is not a disclosure of the reference.
ii) There is no teaching of "maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE."
Para. 0092 of Meghashree discloses he O-SNPN SMF may override a provisioning-server identity, and the O-SNPN PCF may provision URSP rules that restrict communication to the provisioning server and/or specific applications. In the broadest reading, it discloses one onboarding-specific URSP set from the onboarding SNPN. A provisioning-server identity is not a URSP rule set, and onboarding restrictions issued by the O-SNPN are not a second URSP rule set from a home network.
The combination of references does not disclose a UE that maintains its permanent home-network URSP rules while simultaneously receiving and prioritizing new rules from a visited SNPN. Even if Meghashree [0115] is considered for home-network URSP delivery, the reference still does not disclose that the UE later maintains both a home-network URSP set and a different non-subscribed- SNPN URSP set and then resolves a priority conflict between them
In response to Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding the part of the claim 1 and 9:
i) There is no teaching of "determining that the first set of URSP rules is elevated with a higher priority precedence for rule evaluation than the second set of URSP rules when matching traffic of an application to a PDU session.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
This part of the amended claim 1 can be rephrased that the first set of URSP rule is selected or determined with a higher priority precedence when comparing with the second set of URSP rule, to match traffic of an application (for example, specific service type) to a PDU session. Namely, based on the application, the priority (preference) of each URSP rule set can be changed or determined.
Regarding this, Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0124] and [0139]-[0150], exactly teaches about this concept, although Applicant argued. When, as described [0124], establishing a service session (PDU session), if the UE supports access to an SNPN using credential holder, as described in Paragraph [0146]-[0150], the priority of each SNPN (represented by SNPN identity) is determined or selected based on the service type (considered as application), namely, according to the different service types, the priority of the SNPN can be changed and for one SNPN, the priority value can be different for each different service type. Thus, according to the service type (application), UE selects or determines the preferred SNPN and the URSP rule set corresponding to the selected SNPN ID (identity) is determined. The priority of SNPN (identified by SNPN ID) is considered as the priority of URSP rule set. As described in Paragraphs [0139]-[0145], the priority is determined by the UE with various conditions such as subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI, and etc. So, it can be said that the priority of the set of URSP rules is determined by the priority of the corresponding SNPN about the specific service type (application), or vice versa.
In the claim, since the first set of URSP rules came from the unsubscribed SNPN and the second set of URSP rules came from home network (another SNPN), regarding specific application, the priority of the set of URSP rules can be considered as the priority of the corresponding SNPN or vice versa.
Therefore, based on the configuration and the circumstances, the priority can be determined such that the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN has higher priority than the set of URSP rules from a home network (another SNPN). Therefore, Sriganesh clearly disclosed this part of the claim 1 and 9.
ii) There is no teaching of "maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE."
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081] and [0092], teaches that as described in Paragraph [0080], the SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig2 corresponds to the HN (Home Network) 130. Further, as described in Paragraphs [0092], the PCF (Policy Control Function) provisions URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS (Provisioning Server) 220 and/or specific applications. Namely, the URSP rules are dynamically maintained and updated exclusively between the Home Network's PCF and the UE. Therefore, the set of URSP rules from home network can be maintained by UE with PCF. Thus, Megashree clearly disclose this part of the claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh clearly discloses the amended claims 1 and 9. By similar reasoning, the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 are clearly disclosed by combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh.
Thus, the 103 rejections of the previous office action will be maintained with this instant office action. Due to the amendments, the new rejection is added in the instant office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 9-13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, 9-11 and 13-16 of copending Application No. 18/085,395 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims anticipate the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Per claim 1 (independent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085395
1. A method, comprising: obtaining a first set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules from a non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) by a user equipment (UE), wherein the UE registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using credentials from a credentials holder; maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE; determining that the first set of URSP rules has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules; and establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session based on the first set of URSP rules obtained from the non- subscribed SNPN.
1. A method, comprising: selecting a non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) by a user equipment (UE), wherein the UE is enabled to access to the non-subscribed stand-alone non- public network (SNPN) using credentials from a credentials holder; registering to the non-subscribed SNPN using the credentials supplied by the credentials holder; 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.
5. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: 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.
6. The method of Claim 5, wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 1.
Per claim 2 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).
2. The method of Claim 1, wherein the credentials holder is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 2
Per claim 3 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is another SNPN.
3. The method of Claim 1, wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN.
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 3.
Per claim 4 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.
7. The method of Claim 5, wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.
Copending Application 18/085,395discloses the claim 4.
Per claim 5 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
5. The method of Claim 1, 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.
8. The method of Claim 5, 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.
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 4.
Per claim 9 (independent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
9. A User Equipment (UE), comprising: a UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) handling circuit that obtains a first set of URSP rules from a non- subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN), wherein the UE registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using credentials from a credentials holder; the URSP handling circuit that maintains a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE; a control circuit that determines that the first set of URSP rules has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules; and a protocol data unit (PDU) session handling circuit that establishes a PDU session based on the first set of URSP rules obtained from the non-subscribed SNPN.
9. A User Equipment (UE), comprising: a control circuit that selects a non-subscribed stand- alone non-public network (SNPN), wherein the UE is enabled to access to the non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) using credentials from a credentials holder; a registration handling circuit that registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using the credentials supplied by the credentials holder; 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.
13. The UE of Claim 9, 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.
14. The UE of Claim 13, wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 9.
Per claim 10 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
10. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).
10. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the credentials holder is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 10.
Per claim 11 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
11. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is another SNPN.
11. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the credentials holder is another SNPN.
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 11.
Per claim 12 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
12. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.
15. The UE of Claim 13, wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.
Copending Application 18/085,395 discloses the claim 12.
Per claim 13 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
13. The UE of Claim 9, 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.
16. The UE of Claim 13, 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.
Copending Application 18/085,395discloses the claim 13.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 14 of copending Application No. US 18/085,395 (hereinafter “Copending Application 18/085395”) in view of Meghashree Dattatri Kedalagudde and et. al. (USPub No.: US 20210058784 A1, hereinafter “Meghashree”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Per claim 6 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
6. The method of Claim 1, wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules
Copending Application 18/085,395does not disclose, but Meghashree discloses that wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules (Meghashree, in Paragraphs [0071] and [0072], teaches that the UE 502 is not provisioned with credentials required to access either the NPN or the future home network of the UE 502 (hereinafter referred to as "network credentials" or "NPN credentials"). The network/NPN (Non-Pubic Network) credentials may include information that the UE 502 uses for authentication to access an NPN. NPN credentials may be 3GPP credentials ( e.g., SUPI and associated key for Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA)) SNPN 110 supports connectivity from an unauthenticated UE 502 ( e.g., a UE 502 with no network credentials) to the onboarding server 120 so that it can be provisioned with network credentials of the HN (Home Network) 130. In a majority of cases, the SNPN 110 and HN 130 will be the same network, but in certain scenarios the SNPN may be different from the HN 130. In the general case depicted in figure the SNPN and the HN 130 are considered as separate networks. Based on this observation, the URSP for both NPN and the future home network credentials can be non-default URSP. Therefore, it is clear that the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Copending Application 18/085,395 and Meghashree to include the technique of wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules of Meghashree in the system of Copending Application 18/085,395 to UE onboarding and provisioning mechanism for NPN to support a secure mechanism in 5G system to remotely provision the non-3GPP identities and credentials of a uniquely identifiable and verifiably secure Internet of Things (IoT) device. (Meghashree, see Paragraph [0007])..
Per claim 7 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
7. The method of Claim 1, wherein the second set of URSP rules was signaled from the home network when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials, further comprising: maintaining a third set of URSP rules that is pre- configured by the home network holding the credentials.
8. The method of Claim 5, 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.
Copending Application 18/085,395 does not disclose, but Meghashree discloses that maintaining a third set of URSP rules that is pre- configured by the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Paragarph [0092], teaches that when SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF624 in the O (onboarding)-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS (Provisioning Server) identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP provided by PCF can be considered as the preconfigured URSP for SO-SNPN (can be Home Network). Therefore, it is clear that the third set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials and maintained by UE.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Copending Application 18/085,395 and Meghashree to include the technique of maintaining a third set of URSP rules that is pre- configured by the home network holding the credentials of Meghashree in the system of Copending Application 18/085,395 to UE onboarding and provisioning mechanism for NPN to support a secure mechanism in 5G system to remotely provision the non-3GPP identities and credentials of a uniquely identifiable and verifiably secure Internet of Things (IoT) device. (Meghashree, see Paragraph [0007])
Per claim 14 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
14. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules.
Copending Application 18/085,395 does not disclose, but Meghashree discloses that wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules (Meghashree, in Paragraphs [0071] and [0072], teaches that the UE 502 is not provisioned with credentials required to access either the NPN or the future home network of the UE 502 (hereinafter referred to as "network credentials" or "NPN credentials"). The network/NPN (Non-Pubic Network) credentials may include information that the UE 502 uses for authentication to access an NPN. NPN credentials may be 3GPP credentials ( e.g., SUPI and associated key for Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA)) SNPN 110 supports connectivity from an unauthenticated UE 502 ( e.g., a UE 502 with no network credentials) to the onboarding server 120 so that it can be provisioned with network credentials of the HN (Home Network) 130. In a majority of cases, the SNPN 110 and HN 130 will be the same network, but in certain scenarios the SNPN may be different from the HN 130. In the general case depicted in figure the SNPN and the HN 130 are considered as separate networks. Based on this observation, the URSP for both NPN and the future home network credentials can be non-default URSP. Therefore, it is clear that the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Copending Application 18/085,395 and Meghashree to include the technique of wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules of Meghashree in the system of Copending Application 18/085,395 to UE onboarding and provisioning mechanism for NPN to support a secure mechanism in 5G system to remotely provision the non-3GPP identities and credentials of a uniquely identifiable and verifiably secure Internet of Things (IoT) device. (Meghashree, see Paragraph [0007])
Per claim 15 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
15. The UE of Claim 9, wherein the second set of URSP rules was signaled from the home network when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials, wherein the UE maintains a third set of URSP rules that is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.
16. The UE of Claim 13, 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.
Copending Application 18/085,395 does not disclose, but Meghashree discloses that wherein the UE maintains a third set of URSP rules that is pre- configured by the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Paragarph [0092], teaches that when SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF624 in the O (onboarding)-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS (Provisioning Server) identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP provided by PCF can be considered as the preconfigured URSP for SO-SNPN (can be Home Network). Therefore, it is clear that the third set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials and maintained by UE.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Copending Application 18/085,395 and Meghashree to include the technique of wherein the UE maintains a third set of URSP rules that is pre- configured by the home network holding the credentials of Meghashree in the system of Copending Application 18/085,395 to UE onboarding and provisioning mechanism for NPN to support a secure mechanism in 5G system to remotely provision the non-3GPP identities and credentials of a uniquely identifiable and verifiably secure Internet of Things (IoT) device. (Meghashree, see Paragraph [0007])
Claims 8 and 16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6, 7-11, 14, and 15-16 of copending Application No. US 18/085,395 (hereinafter “Copending Application 18/085395”) in view of Meghashree Dattatri Kedalagudde and et. al. (USPub No.: US 20210058784 A1, hereinafter “Meghashree”) and further in a view of Sriganesh Rajendran and et. al. (USPub No.: US 20240334532 A1, hereinafter “Sriganesh”).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Per claim 8 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
8. The method of Claim 7, wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
6. The method of Claim 5, wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
Copending Application 18/085,395 does not disclose, but Sriganesh discloses that prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session (Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0139]-[0147], teaches that the UE is configured by the subscription provider with list of subscriber data had each entry in the list is provisioned with at least of the possible combining of following: subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI. Then, If the UE supports access to an SNPN using credentials from a credential holder, user-controlled list of preferred SNPNs where each entity holds an SNPN identity along with different priority values for different service types. Therefore, the SNPNs can have different priority values for different service type and accordingly, their URSP can follow the priority. Based on this, it is clear that the UE prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Copending Application 18/085,395 and Sriganesh to include the technique of prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session of Sriganesh in the system of Copending Application 18/085,395to provide the efficient network access and selection method for stand-alone non-public network to enhance non-public network operation for emergency service in 5G network. (Sriganesh, see Paragraphs [0029]-[0030).).
Per claim 16 (dependent):
Instant Application 18/085,435
Copending Application 18/085,395
16. The UE of Claim 15, wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
14. The UE of Claim 13, wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
Copending Application 18/085,395 does not disclose, but Sriganesh discloses that and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session (Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0139]-[0147], teaches that the UE is configured by the subscription provider with list of subscriber data nad each entry in the list is provisioned with at least of the possible combining of following: subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI. Then, If the UE supports access to an SNPN using credentials from a credential holder, user-controlled list of preferred SNPNs where each entity holds an SNPN identity along with different priority values for different service types. Therefore, the SNPNs can have different priority values for different service type and accordingly, their URSP can follow the priority. Based on this, it is clear that the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Copending Application 18/085,395 and Sriganesh to include the technique of and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session of Sriganesh in the system of Copending Application 18/085,395 to provide the efficient network access and selection method for stand-alone non-public network to enhance non-public network operation for emergency service in 5G network. (Sriganesh, see Paragraphs [0029]-[0030).).
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 1-16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meghashree Dattatri Kedalagudde et. al. (USPub No.: US 20210058784 A1, hereinafter “Meghashree”) in a view of Sriganesh Rajendran et. al. (USPub No.: US 20240334532 A1, hereinafter “Sriganesh”).
Regarding claim 1, Meghashree teaches that a method, comprising: obtaining a first set of UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules from a non-subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) by a user equipment (UE), wherein the UE registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using credentials from a credentials holder; (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0080], [0081] and [0092], teaches that in Fig. 2, the UE 502 gets network connectivity to an Onboarding SNPN (O-SNPN) 210 (it can be considered non-subscribed SNPN) so that it can be provisioned with necessary subscription credentials and configuration for the Subscription Owner (SO)-SNPN 230 (it can be considered as a credential holder) that will own the UE's 502 subscription ("SNPN owning the subscription"). The O-SNPN 210 may correspond to the SNPN 110, the PS 220 may correspond to the onboarding server 120, and the SO-SNPN 230 may correspond to the HN 130 (Home Network). The UE 502 is not provisioned with subscription credentials that grant access to an SO-PLMN or to an SO-SNPN 230. As part of the onboarding process the UE 502 gets access granted to an O-SNPN 210. The Subscription Owner (SO) is an entity that stores and as result of the UE Onboarding procedures provide the subscription data and optionally other configuration information via the provisioning server (PS) to the UE 502. When SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF 624 in the O-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS (Provision Server) identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP based on PS can be considered as the URSP for O-SNPN (non-subscribed SNPN). Therefore, it is clear that the UE obtain URSP from non-subscribed SNPN through PCF and UE registers to a non-subscribed SNPN using credentials of SO-SNPN or Home Network.) maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE; (Meghashree in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081] and [0092], teaches that as described in Paragraph [0080], the SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig. 2 corresponds to the HN (Home Network) 130. Further, as described in Paragraphs [0092], the PCF (Policy Control Function) provisions URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS (Provisioning Server) 220 and/or specific applications. Namely, the URSP rules are dynamically maintained and updated exclusively between the Home Network's PCF and the UE. Therefore, the set of URSP rules from home network can be maintained by UE with PCF.) and establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session based on the first set of URSP rules obtained from the non- subscribed SNPN (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and in Paragraph [0115], teaches that during the registration procedure (Fig. 1 step 4), AMF 621 indicates to PCF 626 that UE 502 has requested restricted/provisioning registration. The PCF 626 may initiate UE Policy delivery using URSP, for instance to trigger UE 502 after successful registration to request establishment of specific type of PDU Session limited to onboarding purposes only. Therefore, it is clear that the PDU session may be established based on the first set of URSP rule obtained from the non-subscribed SNPN.)
However, Meghashree does not explicitly teach about determining priority of the set of URSP rules.
Sriganesh teaches that determining that the first set of URSP rules is elevated with a higher priority precedence for rule evaluation than the second set of URSP rules when matching traffic of an application to a PDU session; and (Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0124] and [0139]-[0150],teaches that when, as described [0124], establishing a service session (PDU session), if the UE supports access to an SNPN using credential holder, as described in Paragraph [0146]-[0150], the priority of each SNPN (represented by SNPN identity) is determined or selected based on the service type (considered as application), namely, according to the different service types, the priority of the SNPN can be changed and for one SNPN, the priority value can be different for each different service type. Thus, according to the service type (application), UE selects or determines the preferred SNPN and the URSP rule set corresponding to the selected SNPN ID (identity) is determined. The priority of SNPN (identified by SNPN ID) is considered as the priority of URSP rule set. As described in Paragraphs [0139]-[0145], the priority is determined by the UE with various conditions such as subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI, and etc. So, it can be said that the priority of the set of URSP rules is determined by the priority of the corresponding SNPN about the specific service type (application), or vice versa. In the claim, since the first set of URSP rules came from the unsubscribed SNPN and the second set of URSP rules came from home network (another SNPN), regarding specific application, the priority of the set of URSP rules can be considered as the priority of the corresponding SNPN or vice versa. Therefore, based on the configuration and the circumstances, the priority can be determined such that the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN has higher priority than the set of URSP rules from a home network (HN is also a SNPN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Meghashree and Sriganesh to include the technique of determining that the first set of URSP rules is elevated with a higher priority precedence for rule evaluation than the second set of URSP rules when matching traffic of an application to a PDU session of Sriganesh in the system of Meghashree to provide the efficient network access and selection method for stand-alone non-public network to enhance non-public network operation for emergency service in 5G network. (Sriganesh, see Paragraphs [0029]-[0030).).
Regarding claim 2, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081], teaches that SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig. 2 may corresponds to the Home Network (HN) 130 in Fig. 1 and as described in Paragraph [0081] , the SO-SNPN 230 corresponding to Home Network 130 in Fig. 1 can be SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN or SO (Subscription Owner)-PLMN. Therefore, it is clear that the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).)
Regarding claim 3, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is another SNPN (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081], teaches that SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig. 2 may corresponds to the Home Network (HN) 130 in Fig. 1 and as described in Paragraph [0081] , the SO-SNPN 230 corresponding to Home Network 130 in Fig. 1 can be SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN or SO (Subscription Owner)-PLMN. Therefore, it is clear that the home network is the credentials holder and is an another SNPN, namely, SO-SNPN.)
Regarding claim 4, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Paragarph [0092], teaches that when SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF624 in the O (onboarding)-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS (Provisioning Server) identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP provided by PCF can be considered as the preconfigured URSP for SO-SNPN (can be Home Network). Therefore, it is clear that the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.)
Regarding claim 5, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that 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 (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0079] and [0115], teaches that in Fig. 1, at step 4, registration with the future HN 130 of the UE 502 takes place. Based on the HN (Home Network) 130 credentials provisioning in Steps 2 and 3, the UE 502 initiates a Registration procedure with the HN 130. As part of UE initial registration AMF 621 indicates to PCF 626 that UE 502 has requested restricted/provisioning registration. The PCF 626 may initiate UE Policy delivery using URSP, for instance to trigger UE 502 after successful registration to request establishment of specific type of PDU Session limited to onboarding purposes only. In this observation, it is clear that 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.)
Regarding claim 6, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules (Meghashree, in Paragraphs [0071] and [0072], teaches that the UE 502 is not provisioned with credentials required to access either the NPN or the future home network of the UE 502 (hereinafter referred to as "network credentials" or "NPN credentials"). The network/NPN (Non-Pubic Network) credentials may include information that the UE 502 uses for authentication to access an NPN. NPN credentials may be 3GPP credentials ( e.g., SUPI and associated key for Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA)) SNPN 110 supports connectivity from an unauthenticated UE 502 ( e.g., a UE 502 with no network credentials) to the onboarding server 120 so that it can be provisioned with network credentials of the HN (Home Network) 130. In a majority of cases, the SNPN 110 and HN 130 will be the same network, but in certain scenarios the SNPN may be different from the HN 130. In the general case depicted in figure the SNPN and the HN 130 are considered as separate networks. Based on this observation, the URSP for both NPN and the future home network credentials can be non-default URSP. Therefore, it is clear that the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules)
Regarding claim 7, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the second set of URSP rules was signaled from the home network holding the credentials when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0079] and [0115], teaches that in Fig. 1, at step 4, registration with the future HN 130 of the UE 502 takes place. Based on the HN (Home Network) 130 credentials provisioning in Steps 2 and 3, the UE 502 initiates a Registration procedure with the HN 130. As part of UE initial registration AMF 621 indicates to PCF 626 that UE 502 has requested restricted/provisioning registration. The PCF 626 may initiate UE Policy delivery using URSP, for instance to trigger UE 502 after successful registration to request establishment of specific type of PDU Session limited to onboarding purposes only. In this observation, it is clear that 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.) maintaining a third set of URSP rules that is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Paragarph [0092], teaches that when SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF624 in the O (onboarding)-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS (Provisioning Server) identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP provided by PCF can be considered as the preconfigured URSP for SO-SNPN (can be Home Network). Therefore, it is clear that the third set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials and maintained by UE.)
Regarding claim 8, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 7, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sriganesh further teaches that wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session (Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0139]-[0147], teaches that the UE is configured by the subscription provider with list of subscriber data and each entry in the list is provisioned with at least of the possible combining of following: subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI. Then, If the UE supports access to an SNPN using credentials from a credential holder, user-controlled list of preferred SNPNs where each entity holds an SNPN identity along with different priority values for different service types. Therefore, the SNPNs can have different priority values for different service type and accordingly, their URSP can follow the priority. Based on this, it is clear that the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Meghashree and Sriganesh to include the technique of wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session of Sriganesh in the system of Meghashree to provide the efficient network access and selection method for stand-alone non-public network to enhance non-public network operation for emergency service in 5G network. (Sriganesh, see Paragraphs [0029]-[0030).).
Regarding claim 9, Meghashree teaches that a User Equipment (UE), comprising: a UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) handling circuit (Meghashree, in Fig. 9, teaches that FIG. 9 illustrates an example of infrastructure equipment in accordance with various embodiments.) that obtains a first set of URSP rules from a non- subscribed stand-alone non-public network (SNPN), wherein the UE registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using credentials from a credentials holder; (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0080], [0081] and [0092], teaches that in Fig. 2, the UE 502 gets network connectivity to an Onboarding SNPN (O-SNPN) 210 (it can be considered non-subscribed SNPN) so that it can be provisioned with necessary subscription credentials and configuration for the Subscription Owner (SO)-SNPN 230 (it can be considered as a credential holder) that will own the UE's 502 subscription ("SNPN owning the subscription"). The O-SNPN 210 may correspond to the SNPN 110, the PS 220 may correspond to the onboarding server 120, and the SO-SNPN 230 may correspond to the HN 130 (Home Network). The UE 502 is not provisioned with subscription credentials that grant access to an SO-PLMN or to an SO-SNPN 230. As part of the onboarding process the UE 502 gets access granted to an O-SNPN 210. The Subscription Owner (SO) is an entity that stores and as result of the UE Onboarding procedures provide the subscription data and optionally other configuration information via the provisioning server (PS) to the UE 502. When SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF 624 in the O-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS (Provision Server) identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP based on PS can be considered as the URSP for O-SNPN (non-subscribed SNPN). Therefore, it is clear that the UE obtain URSP from non-subscribed SNPN through PCF and UE registers to a non-subscribed SNPN using credentials of SO-SNPN or Home Network.) the URSP handling circuit that maintains a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE; (Meghashree in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081] and [0092], teaches that as described in Paragraph [0080], the SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig. 2 corresponds to the HN (Home Network) 130. Further, as described in Paragraphs [0092], the PCF (Policy Control Function) provisions URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS (Provisioning Server) 220 and/or specific applications. Namely, the URSP rules are dynamically maintained and updated exclusively between the Home Network's PCF and the UE. Therefore, the set of URSP rules from home network can be maintained by UE with PCF.) and a protocol data unit (PDU) session handling circuit that establishes a PDU session based on the first set of URSP rules obtained from the non-subscribed SNPN (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and in Paragraph [0115], teaches that during the registration procedure (Fig. 1 step 4), AMF 621 indicates to PCF 626 that UE 502 has requested restricted/provisioning registration. The PCF 626 may initiate UE Policy delivery using URSP, for instance to trigger UE 502 after successful registration to request establishment of specific type of PDU Session limited to onboarding purposes only. Therefore, it is clear that the PDU session may be established based on the first set of URSP rule obtained from the non-subscribed SNPN.)
However, Meghashree does not explicitly teach about determining the priorities of sets of URSP rules.
Sriganesh teaches that a control circuit that determines that the first set of URSP rules is elevated with a higher priority precedence for rule evaluation than the second set of URSP rules when matching traffic of an application to a PDU session; (Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0124] and [0139]-[0150],teaches that when, as described [0124], establishing a service session (PDU session), if the UE supports access to an SNPN using credential holder, as described in Paragraph [0146]-[0150], the priority of each SNPN (represented by SNPN identity) is determined or selected based on the service type (considered as application), namely, according to the different service types, the priority of the SNPN can be changed and for one SNPN, the priority value can be different for each different service type. Thus, according to the service type (application), UE selects or determines the preferred SNPN and the URSP rule set corresponding to the selected SNPN ID (identity) is determined. The priority of SNPN (identified by SNPN ID) is considered as the priority of URSP rule set. As described in Paragraphs [0139]-[0145], the priority is determined by the UE with various conditions such as subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI, and etc. So, it can be said that the priority of the set of URSP rules is determined by the priority of the corresponding SNPN about the specific service type (application), or vice versa. In the claim, since the first set of URSP rules came from the unsubscribed SNPN and the second set of URSP rules came from home network (another SNPN), regarding specific application, the priority of the set of URSP rules can be considered as the priority of the corresponding SNPN or vice versa. Therefore, based on the configuration and the circumstances, the priority can be determined such that the first set of URSP rules from the non-subscribed SNPN has higher priority than the set of URSP rules from a home network (HN is also a SNPN).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Meghashree and Sriganesh to include the technique of a control circuit that determines that the first set of URSP rules is elevated with a higher priority precedence for rule evaluation than the second set of URSP rules when matching traffic of an application to a PDU session of Sriganesh in the system of Meghashree to provide the efficient network access and selection method for stand-alone non-public network to enhance non-public network operation for emergency service in 5G network. (Sriganesh, see Paragraphs [0029]-[0030).).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 9, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081], teaches that SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig. 2 may corresponds to the Home Network (HN) 130 in Fig. 1 and as described in Paragraph [0081] , the SO-SNPN 230 corresponding to Home Network 130 in Fig. 1 can be SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN or SO (Subscription Owner)-PLMN. Therefore, it is clear that the home network is the credentials holder and is a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN).)
Regarding claim 11, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 9, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the home network is the credentials holder and is another SNPN (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0080]-[0081], teaches that SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN 230 in Fig. 2 may corresponds to the Home Network (HN) 130 in Fig. 1 and as described in Paragraph [0081] , the SO-SNPN 230 corresponding to Home Network 130 in Fig. 1 can be SO (Subscription Owner)-SNPN or SO (Subscription Owner)-PLMN. Therefore, it is clear that the home network is the credentials holder and is an another SNPN, namely, SO-SNPN.)
Regarding claim 12, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 9, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Paragarph [0092], teaches that when SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF624 in the O (onboarding)-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS (Provisioning Server) identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP provided by PCF can be considered as the preconfigured URSP for SO-SNPN (can be Home Network). Therefore, it is clear that the second set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials.)
Regarding claim 13, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 9, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that 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 (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0079] and [0115], teaches that in Fig. 1, at step 4, registration with the future HN 130 of the UE 502 takes place. Based on the HN (Home Network) 130 credentials provisioning in Steps 2 and 3, the UE 502 initiates a Registration procedure with the HN 130. As part of UE initial registration AMF 621 indicates to PCF 626 that UE 502 has requested restricted/provisioning registration. The PCF 626 may initiate UE Policy delivery using URSP, for instance to trigger UE 502 after successful registration to request establishment of specific type of PDU Session limited to onboarding purposes only. In this observation, it is clear that 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.)
Regarding claim 14, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 9, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules (Meghashree, in Paragraphs [0071] and [0072], teaches that the UE 502 is not provisioned with credentials required to access either the NPN or the future home network of the UE 502 (hereinafter referred to as "network credentials" or "NPN credentials"). The network/NPN (Non-Pubic Network) credentials may include information that the UE 502 uses for authentication to access an NPN. NPN credentials may be 3GPP credentials ( e.g., SUPI and associated key for Authentication and Key Agreement (AKA)) SNPN 110 supports connectivity from an unauthenticated UE 502 ( e.g., a UE 502 with no network credentials) to the onboarding server 120 so that it can be provisioned with network credentials of the HN (Home Network) 130. In a majority of cases, the SNPN 110 and HN 130 will be the same network, but in certain scenarios the SNPN may be different from the HN 130. In the general case depicted in figure the SNPN and the HN 130 are considered as separate networks. Based on this observation, the URSP for both NPN and the future home network credentials can be non-default URSP. Therefore, it is clear that the first set of URSP rules and the second set of URSP rules are non-default URSP rules)
Regarding claim 15, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 1, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Meghashree further teaches that wherein the second set of URSP rules was signaled from the home network when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Fig. 1 and 2 and in Paragraphs [0079] and [0115], teaches that in Fig. 1, at step 4, registration with the future HN 130 of the UE 502 takes place. Based on the HN (Home Network) 130 credentials provisioning in Steps 2 and 3, the UE 502 initiates a Registration procedure with the HN 130. As part of UE initial registration AMF 621 indicates to PCF 626 that UE 502 has requested restricted/provisioning registration. The PCF 626 may initiate UE Policy delivery using URSP, for instance to trigger UE 502 after successful registration to request establishment of specific type of PDU Session limited to onboarding purposes only. In this observation, it is clear that the second set of URSP rules is signaled from the home network when the UE was registered in the home network holding the credentials.) wherein the UE maintains a third set of URSP rules that is pre- configured by the home network holding the credentials (Meghashree, in Paragarph [0092], teaches that when SO-SNPN 230 identity is provided by the UE 502, the SMF624 in the O (onboarding)-SNPN 210 may decide to override the PS (Provisioning Server) identity provided by the UE 502 and send the new PS identity to the UE 502 in the PDU Session Establishment Accept as PCO (Protocol Configuration Options) parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF (Policy Control Function) may in addition provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Here, the URSP provided by PCF can be considered as the preconfigured URSP for SO-SNPN (can be Home Network). Therefore, it is clear that the third set of URSP rules is pre-configured by the home network holding the credentials and maintained by UE.)
Regarding claim 16, combination of Meghashree and Sriganesh teaches the features defined in the claim 15, -refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Sriganesh further teaches that wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session (Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0139]-[0147], teaches that the UE is configured by the subscription provider with list of subscriber data nad each entry in the list is provisioned with at least of the possible combining of following: subscriber identity, credentials, SNPN identity of subscribed SNPN, Unified access control configuration, User Route Selection Policy (URSP), Default NSSAI. Then, If the UE supports access to an SNPN using credentials from a credential holder, user-controlled list of preferred SNPNs where each entity holds an SNPN identity along with different priority values for different service types. Therefore, the SNPNs can have different priority values for different service type and accordingly, their URSP can follow the priority. Based on this, it is clear that the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Meghashree and Sriganesh to include the technique of wherein the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules, and prioritizes the second set of URSP rules over the third set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session of Sriganesh in the system of Meghashree to provide the efficient network access and selection method for stand-alone non-public network to enhance non-public network operation for emergency service in 5G network. (Sriganesh, see Paragraphs [0029]-[0030).).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAEYOUNG KWAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1768. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM -5 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at 571-272-3980. 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.
/JAEYOUNG KWAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
