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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS(es) submitted on 3/8/2024, 4/21/2024, 8/21/2025, 11/28/2025 have been considered.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration filed on 3/30/2023 has been acknowledged.
Drawings
Drawing(s) submitted on 3/30/2023 have been acknowledged.
Examiner’s Remarks
Please update the claim sheet to reflect the non-elected claims 16-20.
Claims 2 and 11 should be amended to clarify the abbreviated feature of GIN IDs.
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, and 11 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) ; and
presenting to the user whether corresponding validity criteria associated with the first SNPN are met ([0050]: presenting to user supported networks for selection).
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 claim 6, 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).
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
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