9Notice 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 .
Examiner’s Remarks
Examiner would like to thank Applicant for updating the claim sheet to cancel out non-elected claims 16-20.
Claims 2 and 11 should still be amended to clarify the abbreviated feature of GIN IDs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 10, Applicant argues that Kim does not disclose the specific feature of “the first SNPN ID is associated with validity information” (Remarks Page 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to assert that due to the broadness of the claim language, Kim does in fact disclose the limitation of
“…wherein the first SNPN ID is associated with validity information ([0045]-[0050], [0046]: indication of support and access credential support; Fig. 1D, 1d-50; specifically [0052] and [0055]:wherein each SNPN may include barring configuration information for each SNPN); and
presenting to the user whether corresponding validity criteria associated with the first SNPN are met ([0056]-[0058]: UE performing a barring check to determine if access is allowed).”
Furthermore, Examiner would like to assert that due to the broadness of the claim language, Kim does disclose the limitation of claim 6, wherein Kim discloses wherein the validity information comprises at least one of time validity information and location validity information ([0059]-[0061]: barring information includes the use of a barring factor and barring time; due to the broadness of the claim language, the claim only requires the validity information to be at least one of time or location. In this case barring time would be the information that is part of the barring information).
Regarding claim 15, Examiner would like to direct Applicant’s attention to the similarity it has to rejected claim 6.
Due to the broadness of the claim language, Examiner urges Applicant to further specify what exactly a time of validity entails to overcome the rejection, or to include both the time of validity and location of validity to be required by the claims (6 and 15). As for independent claims 1 and 10, it would also be beneficial to define more specifically what the validity information entails, to properly overcome the rejection.
Therefore, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance and are rejected as explained above and shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2024/0172093).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kim discloses a method, comprising:
maintaining a configuration for Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) selection by a user equipment (UE), wherein the configuration for SNPN selection comprises a list of SNPN IDs (Fig. 1D; [0045]-[0050]; [0049]: broadcasting a list of supported network IDs for manual network selection);
triggering a manual network selection by a user of the UE ([0050]: user may manually select network);
determining that a first SNPN ID broadcasted by the first SNPN is included the configuration for SNPN selection, wherein the first SNPN ID is associated with validity information ([0045]-[0050], [0046]: indication of support and access credential support; Fig. 1D, 1d-50; specifically [0052] and [0055]:wherein each SNPN may include barring configuration information for each SNPN); and
presenting to the user whether corresponding validity criteria associated with the first SNPN are met ([0056]-[0058]: UE performing a barring check to determine if access is allowed).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Kim discloses wherein the configuration for SNPN selection further comprises a list of GIN IDs, the method further comprising:
determining that a GIN ID broadcasted by a second SNPN is included the configuration for SNPN selection, wherein the GIN ID is associated with validity information ([0051]: indicators A and B of each SNPN whether they are supported; [0131]-[0135]: credentials of SNPNs are also provided, [0134]: the BS may provide a GIN list supportable for credential access for each of the SNPN to the UEs); and
presenting to the user whether corresponding validity criteria associated with the GIN ID broadcasted by the second SNPN are met ([0134]: the BS may provide a GIN list supportable for credential access for each of the SNPN to the UEs).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kim discloses wherein the validity information comprises at least one of time validity information and location validity information ([0059]-[0061]: using a barring time to determine allowable access; barring information includes the use of a barring factor and barring time; due to the broadness of the claim language, the claim only requires the validity information to be at least one of time or location. In this case barring time would be the information that is part of the barring information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3-5, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Jung et al. (US 2023/0075285; hereinafter Jung).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kim discloses all the particulars of the claims including in [0062]: applying a higher priority to the access in which a service can be provided directly by the BS, but is unclear about wherein the UE presents to the user a higher priority network candidates in front of a lower priority network.
However, Jung does disclose the limitation of wherein the UE presents to the user a higher priority network candidates in front of a lower priority network ([0162], [0164]: a prioritized list of preferred SNPNs based on credentials).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kim in view of Jung does disclose wherein the higher priority network is an SNPN with an SNPN ID that is associated with corresponding validity criteria that are met ([0162], [0164]: a prioritized list of preferred SNPNs based on credentials).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kim in view of Jung does disclose wherein the higher priority network is an SNPN broadcasting a GIN ID that is associated with corresponding validity criteria that are met ([0162], [0164]: a prioritized list of preferred SNPNs based on credentials).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Prabhakar et al. (US 2021/0211975; hereinafter Prabhakar).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein an SNPN is authorized when there is no location validity information associated with the SNPN and the time validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current time of the UE.
However, Prabhakar does disclose the limitation of wherein an SNPN is authorized when there is no location validity information associated with the SNPN and the time validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current time of the UE ([0225]: the configuration and subscription of the SNPN would be considered based on location and time period of validity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Prabhakar’s disclosure to provide correct service subscription based on location and time for access.
Regarding claim 8 Kim discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein an SNPN is authorized when there is no time validity information associated with the SNPN and the location validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current location of the UE.
However, Prabhakar does disclose the limitation of wherein an SNPN is authorized when there is no time validity information associated with the SNPN and the location validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current location of the UE ([0225]: the configuration and subscription of the SNPN would be considered based on location and time period of validity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Prabhakar’s disclosure to provide correct service subscription based on location and time for access.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitation of wherein an SNPN is authorized when the time validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current time of the UE and the location validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current location of the UE.
However, Prabhakar does disclose the limitation of of wherein an SNPN is authorized when the time validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current time of the UE and the location validity information associated with the SNPN matches a current location of the UE ([0225]: the configuration and subscription of the SNPN would be considered based on location and time period of validity).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Prabhakar’s disclosure to provide correct service subscription based on location and time for access.
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 CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights