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 09/02/2025 have been considered for examination. Claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application.
With regard to double patenting, Applicant’s arguments filed 09/02/2025 (see page 5-6 of Remarks) in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Thus, the claim rejection under double patenting is maintained in the instant office action.
Regarding claim 1-5 and 9-13:
Application argued:
There is no disclosure of "the UE registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using credentials from a credentials holder."
Claim 1 of the current application recites that the UE is registered to the non-subscribed SNPN, and first set of URSP is obtained/ signaled from the network. Claims 1 and 6 of the reference application recites, WHILE the UE is registering, the first set of URSP rule is received, while registering from the network.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Examiner disagrees since it is clearly show in the table under the double patenting rejection. In the table, “the UE registers to the non-subscribed SNPN using credentials from a credentials holder” in the claim 1 of the current application is corresponding to “registering to the non-subscribed SNPN using the credentials supplied by the credentials holder” in the claim 1 of the copending application. Since two function statements are exactly same and its subject is clearly “UE”, the rejection is maintained in this office action.
Further, the claim 6 of the copending application, recited as “the UE prioritizes the first set of URSP rules over the second set of URSP rules when establishing the PDU session” is corresponding to the part of the claim 1 of the current application, recited “establishing a protocol data unit (PDU) session based on the first set of URSP rules obtained from the non-subscribed SNPN.” Therefore, the rejection is maintained in this office action.
Therefore, by this reasoning, the rejection of Claim 1 is maintained under double patenting in the instant office action and with similar reasoning, the rejection of Claim 9 is maintained under double patenting in the instant office action, too. Further, since the independent claims 1 and 9 are rejected, the rejections of the dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 under double patenting are also maintained with the explanation (as shown in the previous office action) in the below.
Therefore, 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 09/02/2025 (see pages 14-17 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.
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 has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules."
Under the teaching of Sriganesh, it NOT the first set of URSP, which is signaled URSP has a higher priority, it is based on each entity associated priority values. In another word, depending on the priority value, the opposite could happen. Further, the priority disclosed in Sriganesh has nothing to do with URSP priority. The Office Action treats the POU-session limitation as an inherent consequence of applying URSP priority, which are of different data set and involves different criteria, which are NOT disclosed by the combination of references.
ii) There is no teaching of "maintaining a second set of URSP rules from a home network by the UE."
The Office Action seems to reason, first, that since the PS entity is overridden, the Office Action extended, WITHOUT any teaching in the references, that the URSP, the second set, is overridden; and second, the Office Action goes even further that since the second set is overridden, it MUST be stored. Both the assumptions are not founded and both are wrong. First, the only teaching about URSP does not teach nor suggest that a URSP is stored since the function of the URSP itself can be used to provision the function. It does NOT has anything related to two sets of URSP, not related to the first set of signaled URSP and the second set of stored URSP as recited in claim 1. Second, the long reasoning chain has no foundation since PS identity and URSP rules handling are two separate procedures.
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 has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules."
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
Sriganesh, in Paragraphs [0139]-[0147], teaches if the UE supports access to an SNPN using credential, … an SNPN identity along with different priority values for different service types. As described, 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. 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. 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 [0092], teaches as described in Paragraphs [0092], the PCF may provision URSP rules for the UE and in general, URSP rules is defined or provide by the network operator (can be the operator of home network) within the PCF, the PCF for the home network maintains the URSP rules of the home network with UE. Similar mentioning can be found in the background part and Paragraph [0026] in the specification of the instant application. 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 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.
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 and et. al. (USPub No.: US 20210058784 A1, hereinafter “Meghashree”) in a view of Sriganesh Rajendran and 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 [0092], teaches 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 parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF may provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Therefore, it is clear that a second set of URSP rules for a home network is maintained by UE.) 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 teach that determining that the first set of URSP rules has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules.
Sriganesh teaches that determining that the first set of URSP rules has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules (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. Based on this, it is clear that the non-subscribed SNPN priority may be higher than the home network’s.
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 has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules 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 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).).
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 [0092], teaches 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 parameter. The PS identity received in the PDU Session Establishment Accept, overrides any configured PS identity in the device. The PCF may provision URSP rules for the UE 502 that restrict communication only to the PS 220 and/or specific applications. Therefore, it is clear that a second set of URSP rules for a home network is maintained by UE.) 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 teach that determining that the first set of URSP rules has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules.
Sriganesh teaches that a control circuit that determines that the first set of URSP rules has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules; (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. Based on this, it is clear that the non-subscribed SNPN priority may be higher than the home network’s.
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 has a higher priority than the second set of URSP rules 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights