Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,3,6-7,9,12,14-15,17,20,22,24,26,28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2022/0110051 to Catovic in view of 2021/0144539 to Edge and U.S. Pub. 2015/0141012 to Ramkumar.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Catovic teaches a method for network selection, applied to a terminal device, comprising:
determining current first location information of the terminal device (see the first steps 702, 902 and 1024 in Figs. 7 and 9-10, which teach the UE determining the country it is currently in, where the MCC/country is the recited “first location”, and see these steps as described in sections [0073], [0091], [0103] and [0107] and in claim 1);
Regarding the feature of claim 1 which recites:
receiving a candidate network information set comprising n subsets, an i-th subset of which comprises a correspondence of the i-th piece of first location information with at least one piece of second location information and at least one piece of mobile network information (see section [0080], which teaches that the UE received the broadcasted list of candidate networks from the PLMN, and see steps 704, 805, 908 and 1026-1028, as described in sections [0066] to [0076], [0092] to [0095] where the “list of available PLMNs” described in Catovic is the recited “candidate network information corresponding to the current first location information and second location”, where each different country corresponds to a first or second location information, for example, a shared PLMN ID (recited “one piece of mobile network information”) is stored with country A (the first location) and country B (the second location).
Regarding the feature of claim 1 which recites:
“in response to that the first location information is inconsistent with the second location information, n being a positive integer i being a positive integer less than or equal to n,” Edge is added to explicitly show “location inconsistency.”
In an analogous art, Edge teaches a mobile device which determines which country it is in and attempts to access a satellite network. As described in section [0144], when the location of the UE is sent to the PLMN to access the network, it is determined that the country of the PLMN (attempted to be accessed) is not the same as the determined location provided by the UE. Therefore, the PLMN will reject the access attempt and may provide alternative PLMNs to access. Therefore, Edge teaches determining that the first location information (provided by the UE) is inconsistent with the second location information (of the country and PLMN attempting to be accessed).
Regarding the amendment to claim 1 which recites:
“that the first location information comprises a first mobile country code (MCC) which characterizes a country where the terminal device is located, and the second location information comprises a second MCC which is a dedicated MCC broadcasted by a satellite network”,
as shown in Fig. 6C of Catovic (and as described in section [0065]), Catovic teaches that the recited “first location” is “country A” (which has an MCC code associated with that country) and the recited “second location” is the “international waters location” which is covered by the satellite 140 broadcasting a global MCC for those international waters. Therefore, as these first and second locations are different, this interpretation of Catovic reads on the newly recited scenario as shown above.
Therefore, similar to applicant’s definition, as each different country is a “subset”, storing a list of the different countries/locations which are associated with the global MMC, stores these locations as “corresponding to each other” (as recited)
Therefore, as Catovic and Edge teach determining UE location for accessing PLMN satellite networks, and as Edge explicitly teaches location inconsistency and both Catovic and Edge teach using other networks to select (based on “two inconsistent locations”), it would have been obvious to modify Catovic with the location inconsistency determination of Edge (for the reasons as described within Edge), as satellite networks may cover many different locations which do not always match the location of the UE.
Therefore, regarding the remaining steps of claim 1 which recite:
selecting, from the candidate network information set, candidate network information corresponding to the current first location information and comprising the second location information and the mobile network information, wherein the candidate network information set comprises correspondences between pieces of first location information and pieces of candidate network information, and the candidate network information indicates at least one candidate public land mobile network (PLMN) for satellite communication (see steps 704, 805, 908 and 1026-1028, as described in sections [0066] to [0076], [0092] to [0095] where the “list of available PLMNs” described in Catovic is the recited “candidate network information corresponding to the current first location information”, where each country “corresponds to the first location information”);
performing network selection according to the candidate network information comprising the second location information and the mobile network information corresponding to the current first location information (see section [0144] of Edge, which teaches selecting another network based on it’s first location and the (second) location of another country/network and see steps 708-710, 916 and 1030 in Figs. 7 and 9-10, which teach the UE selecting a PLMN based on the list of PLMN based country it is currently in, as described in sections [0076], [0091], [0103] and [0107] and in claim 1).
Regarding the amendment to claim 1 which recites:
“wherein the method further comprising:
in response to the terminal device being located in a country other than a home country of the terminal device performing network selection according to a PLMN corresponding to the country other than the home country, and stopping the running scanning timer”, although [0090] of Catovic teaches time intervals, Ramkumar is added.
In an analogous art, Ramkumar teaches a mobile device which determines which country it is in and attempts to access a PLMN network. As described in section [0118], relating to Fig. 15, Ramkumar teaches that “it is determined whether first RF unit 106 is camped on a VPLMN cell. If yes, then at step 1506, the HPPLMN search timer is stopped”. This teaching of camping on a VPLMN essentially “determines that the mobile device is outside the home country” (as recited), and then the timer is stopped (as recited) and then PLMN selection may then select/register with the VPLMN, as recited.
Therefore, as both Catovic and Ramkumar teach roaming PLMN selection and searching intervals, and as Ramkumar explicitly teaches stopping the scanning timer and performing a VPLMN selection in response to the terminal roaming (as recited), it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Catovic to include this feature of Ramkumar, for the reasons discussed in Ramkumar, which are that once logged on to a VPLMN network, there is no reason to waste resources to run a timer.
Regarding claim 14, which recites a “network device” (which would be the base station), which recites the same steps as claim 1 but from the base station point of view, as performed by a processor of the base station, see the processor 1104 shown in Fig. 11, which uses circuitry 1120 and 1110 to transmit the PLMN ID list to the UE of Catovic, see the rejection of claim 1 above, for these steps as described in Catovic and see Ramkumar for teh newly amended feature.
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 15 which recite “wherein the first location information further comprises a geographical location, wherein the first MCC is broadcasted by a cellular network where the terminal device is located”, see sections [0063] to [0066], [0071] and [0080] to [0088] and [0091] to [0093] of Catovic, which teach obtaining the location and broadcasting the MCCs, as recited.
Regarding claims 6 and 12 which recite “wherein the candidate network information corresponding to the current first location information indicates m PLMNs, m being a positive integer, and wherein the performing network selection according to the candidate network information corresponding to the current first location information comprises: receiving broadcast information of at least one satellite network, wherein the broadcast information indicates a PLMN comprising the terminal device in a network coverage area, and selecting a target PLMN from the m PLMNs according to the broadcast information of the at least one satellite network and a priority order of the m PLMNs”, as described in Figs. 7-9 in Catovic, the PLMN list includes a number (“m”) of PLMNs, and as recited the PLMNs are prioritized and are selected based on priority, (see sections [0055] to [0058], [0070], [0090], [0098] and [0117]).
Regarding claim 17 which recites “wherein the candidate network information set comprises n subsets, n being a positive integer, and in response to that the first location information is consistent with the second location information, an i-th subset of the n subsets comprises a correspondence between the i-th piece of first location information and at least one piece of mobile network information, i being a positive integer less than or equal to n”, it is noted that “is consistent” may be interpreted to mean that both a first and second country may access a PLMN, so the other country locations (MCCs) within the list of Catovic are equivalent to the “i-th subset of the n subsets”, as recited.
Regarding claims 20 and 28 which recite “wherein the mobile network information comprises a mobile network code (MNC)”, see sections [0063] and [0064] of Catovic, and sections [0102] and [0133] of Edge, which teach the MNC, as recited.
Regarding claims 22, 24 and 26 which recite “wherein the candidate network information set is configured by using the first location information, the mobile network information and the second location information”, the lists of Catovic/Edge include a first and second locations (countries which are different or “inconsistent”) and a mobile network.
Regarding claim 30, which recites “wherein the candidate network information set is carried in a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card of the terminal device, or carried in a non-access stratum (NAS) message transmitted by the network device”, see section [0088] of Catovic, which teaches the list of PLMNs (“candidate network information set”) is received via a NAS message, and see section [0086] for SIM storage, as recited.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 10,986,570 to Menon.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, which recite “wherein the determining the current first location information of the terminal device comprises: in response to that the terminal device is located in a country other than a home country of the terminal device, determining the current first location information”, as currently written, the teachings of Catovic may be broadly interpreted to meet this language, as when Catovic determines that the MCC is not its home network MCC/PLMN, Catovic would then determine “it is in a location outside its home country” (as recited), and therefore subsequently determine its location as being in the visited country corresponding to the MCC it received, which is then “determining its current location”, as recited. However, for completeness, Menon is added.
In an analogous art, Menon teaches a mobile device which determines which country it is in as this changes its communication parameters and abilities and requires device to device proximity services. As described in Fig. 5 and as in claim 6, Menon teaches receiving MCCs, determining it is in a visited network and determines its location for proximity services. See also column 16, lines 39-67, which teach using GPS, TOF and TOA (“time-of-flight” and “time-of-arrival”) for proximity location determination.
Therefore, as Catovic and Menon teach determining location using MCCs (home and visited) and as Menon explicitly teaches determining that the MCC is not the home network, it would have been obvious to modify Catovic with the location determination of Menon (for the reasons as described within Menon).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of either one of U.S. Pubs. 2021/0352608 to Chun or 2013/0273910 to Zinn.
Regarding claim 13 which recites “wherein the candidate network information corresponding to the current first location information indicates m PLMNs, m being a positive integer, and wherein the processor is configured to: display the m PLMNs: and upon receiving a selection instruction for a target PLMN in the m PLMNs, select the target PLMN”, as Catovic does not teach displaying the PLMNs, either Chun or Zinn is added.
In an analogous art, Chun teaches a roaming mobile device which displays PLMNs. See for example, Figs. 14-15, which display the PLMNs found at the current location and allow the operator to select a PLMN. See also sections [0433]-[0434] and claim 1 of Chun. Similarly in an analogous art, Zinn shows in Figs. 5-7 (as described in sections [0055] to [0065]), displaying found PLMNs (MCCs/MNCs) for user selection.
Therefore, as Catovic stores lists of PLMNs associated with locations (MCCs) and as either Chun or Zinn teach displaying lists of selectable PLMNs (MCCs/MNCs), it would have been obvious to modify Catovic to display the stored and found PLMNs, for the reasons as in Chun/Zinn, which are that displaying the found networks allows for user interaction and network selection preference, as opposed to automatic selection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6-9-26 have been fully considered but they are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached on (571)270-3647. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
