DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/7/25, 11/12/25, 2/3/26, and 3/2/26 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the combination of Won, Park, and Fard fails to teach the claimed validity-driven triggers for entering a LIMITED-SERVICE state because Won does not evaluate validity information and Fard’s validity disclosure relates only to overload-based access barring.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Won teaches that when a UE determines that the current cell cannot serve the UE’s allowed CAG, the UE enters a LIMITED-SERVICE state and searches for another suitable cell. Fard is relied upon for teaching that information associated with a CAG ID may be evaluated to determine whether that CAG authorization is presently usable for access (e.g., whether access is restricted during a validity period). Such information reasonably corresponds to the claimed validity information and validity criteria associated with a CAG ID. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fard’s evaluation of CAG usability into Won’s CAG access determination so that the UE evaluates whether the allowed CAG authorization remains valid before initiating additional cell searches or access attempts. Doing so would prevent the UE from unnecessarily searching for other cells when the allowed CAG IDs are not presently usable (e.g., barred), thereby conserving network signaling, UE processing, and radio resources. If the UE determines that the current cell does not support an allowed CAG while the CAG authorization remains valid, the UE would reasonably conclude that another cell may support that valid CAG and therefore perform Won’s existing behavior of entering LIMITED-SERVICE and searching for another suitable cell.
Applicant contends that Won does not teach the condition that “no CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is included in the supported list of one or more CAG-IDs.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Won discloses determining whether the CAG-ID of the current CAG cell is included in the UE’s allowed CAG list. A “supported list of CAG-IDs” (Won: Par. 688: Lines 1-5) can be interpreted as a list containing a single supported CAG-ID (i.e. The CAG-ID of the current cell) or multiple supported CAG-IDs, since the claim does not define the list as having a plurality of supported CAG-IDs. Thus, when Won determines that the CAG-ID of the current cell is not included in the allowed CAG list (Won: Par.688: Lines 1-5), this corresponds to determining that none of the allowed CAG-IDs are included in the supported list of CAG-IDs of the current cell. Accordingly, Won teaches or at least suggests the claimed condition.
Applicant contends that the combination of Won, Park, and Fard fails to teach the claim’s two-branch, validity-aware trigger for entering LIMITED-SERVICE and asserts that the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Won already teaches that when a UE determines that the current CAG cell cannot serve the UE’s allowed CAG, the UE enters LIMITED-SERVICE and searches for another suitable cell. Fard teaches evaluating information associated with a CAG ID to determine whether the CAG authorization is presently usable for access (e.g., whether access is restricted during a validity period). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate such an evaluation into Won’s determination of whether CAG access is available so that the UE considers whether the allowed CAG authorization remains valid before performing further access procedures. Doing so would allow the UE to avoid unnecessary cell searches or access attempts when the allowed CAG IDs are not presently usable (e.g., barred), thereby conserving UE processing, network signaling, and radio resources. When the UE determines that the current cell does not support an allowed CAG while the CAG authorization remains valid, the UE would reasonably conclude that another cell may support that valid CAG and therefore perform Won’s existing behavior of entering LIMITED-SERVICE and searching for another suitable cell. Accordingly, the combination of Won, Park, and Fard teaches or at least suggests the claimed subject matter, and Applicant’s hindsight argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7,11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (US 20210250890 A1), in view of Park et al. (WO 2022065332 A1, hereinafter Park), in further view of Talebi Fard (US 20200389835 A1, hereinafter Fard).
Regarding claim 1, Won discloses receiving a CAG related configuration via the CAG cell, wherein the CAG related configuration comprises a received allowed CAG list for the current network, and an indication on whether is US is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (Par. 0688: Lines 1-10; The UE receives a configuration update message via a CAG cell, including an allowed CAG list for the current network and an indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells); and
entering a LIMITED-SERVICE state and selecting cell when 1) the UE is allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells, and every CAG-ID included the received allowed CAG list and also included the supported list of one or more CAG-IDs is associated with validity information, and all corresponding validity criteria are not met, OR 2) the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells, and no CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is included in the supported list of one or more CAG-IDS (Par. 688: Lines 3-10; The UE is allowed to enter Limited-Service state when the CAG-ID of the current CAG cell is not included in the UE’s allowed CAG list and the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells).
However, Won, does not disclose accessing to a closed access group (CAG) cell of a current network by a User Equipment (UE), wherein the CAG cell broadcasts a supported list of one or more CAG-IDs of the current network; and 2) at least one CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is associated with the validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria are met.
Park, however, discloses accessing to a closed access group (CAG) cell of a current network by a User Equipment (UE), wherein the CAG cell broadcasts a supported list of one or more CAG-IDs of the current network (Par. 0051: Lines 3-6; A UE can access a CAG cell based on the identifiers a CAG cell broadcasts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Won and Park to enable the UE to evaluate access permission using a broadcast of CAG-ID lists. This would allow the system to perform more dynamic and efficient access validation without requiring pre-configuration of supported lists in the UE, improving interoperability and consistency in CAG access handling.
The combination of Won and Park fail to teach, at least one CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is associated with the validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria are met.
Fard, however, discloses at least one CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is associated with the validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria are met (Fig. 36; CAG-ID is checked if it is subject to barring. If not, UE sends an access request associated with the CAG-ID to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Fard into the combination of Won and Park to enable a UE to make access decisions based on current and contextual validity, thereby improving security and policy enforcement. This would result in a more intelligent and adaptable access control system.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Won discloses entering a PLMN-SEARCH state and applying a network selection process when the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells, and no CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is included in the supported list of one or more CAG-IDs, and the UE has no emergency PDU session (Par. 692: Lines 4-11; PLMN-SEARCH state is entered when the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells, the “allowed CAG list” does not include any CAG-ID, and the UE does not have an emergency PDU session).
Won does not disclose and every CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is associated with the validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria are not met. However, Fard discloses CAG-ID associated with validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria not met (Fig. 36; CAG-ID is checked if it is subject to barring. If it is, UE does not send and access request associated with the CAG-ID to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the teachings of Won, Park, and Fard with the further teachings of Fard to enhance access control by rejecting CAG-IDs that fail validity checks. This would ensure the UE transitions to PLMN-SEARCH when no valid CAG-ID is available, improving selection reliability using known techniques.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Won teaches wherein the UE enters a LIMITED-SERVICE state and performs local release of all non-emergency PDU sessions associated with 3GPP access or 3GPP access user plane user plane resources of all MA PDU sessions when the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells, and the UE has the emergency PDU session (Par 688 Lines 9-14;The UE enters a LIMITED-SERVICE state when the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via caged cells and the “allowed CAG list” received includes one or more CAG-IDs; Par. 690: Lines 7-14 ;The UE performs a local release of all PDU sessions except for emergency PDU sessions when the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells and the UE has an emergency PDU session).
Won does not disclose every CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is associated with the validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria are not met. However, Fard discloses every CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is associated with the validity information, and the corresponding validity criteria are not met (Fig. 36; CAG-ID is checked if it is subject to barring. If it is, UE does not send and access request associated with the CAG-ID to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the teachings of Won, Park, and Fard with the further teachings of Fard to enhance UE access control behavior by conditionally releasing non-emergency sessions when all CAG-IDs fail access conditions, improving network compliance and emergency fallback robustness.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 3, Won discloses wherein no CAG-ID in the received allowed CAG list is included in the supported list of one or more CAG-IDs (Par. 688: Lines 3-5; The CAG allowed list does not include the current CAG cell’s ID).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 3, Won discloses wherein the local release is performed by the UE on (1) a single-access non-emergency PDU session associated with 3GPP access, or (2) the 3GPP access user plane resources of a multiple-access PDU session with user plane resources on both 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, or (3) a multiple-access PDU session with user plane resources only on 3GPP access.
In one embodiment, Won discloses a local release (1) a single-access non-emergency PDU session associated with 3GPP access (Par. 410: Lines 6-9; AMF performs a local release of all non-emergency PDU sessions associated with 3GPP access). In a different embodiment, Won discloses a local release performed by the UE (Par. 690: Lines 13-14; The UE can perform a local release of all non-emergency PDU sessions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the embodiments of Won to offload session management responsibilities from the core network (AMF) to the UE, thereby reducing signaling overhead and enabling faster recovery or state transitions at the UE side.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Won discloses wherein the CAG related configuration is received in a downlink non-access stratum (DL NAS) message (Par. 685: Lines 4-6; The UE is receiving a message via a DL NAS message; Par. 686: Lines 2-5; The content of the message includes a CAG information list, which contains the allowed CAG list and an indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6, Won discloses wherein the DL NAS message carries a cause value indicating that CAG validity criteria are not met or indicating the UE is not authorized for the CAG (Par. 446: Lines 1-6; DL NAS message includes the cause #76 “Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only”).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 11 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 2 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 12 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 3 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 13 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 4 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 14 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 5 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 15 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 6 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 16 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 16, the rejection of claim 7 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 17 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Claims 8-10,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Won (US 20210250890 A1), in view of Park et al. (WO 2022065332 A1, hereinafter Park), in further view of Talebi Fard (US 20200389835 A1, hereinafter Fard) in further view of https://www.tech-invite.com/3m23/toc/tinv-3gpp-23-501_zu.html#e-5-30-2-4-2 (hereinafter, Tech Invite).
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, Won, Park and Fard discloses the claimed invention but do not disclose wherein the validity information includes only time validity information, wherein the validity criteria are met if the time validity information matches a current time of the UE, and wherein the validity criteria are not met if the time validity information does not match the current time of the UE.
Tech Invite, however, discloses wherein the validity information includes only time validity information, wherein the validity criteria are met if the time validity information matches a current time of the UE, and wherein the validity criteria are not met if the time validity information does not match the current time of the UE (Par. 5.30.2.3; Validity information consists of time validity information for which access to the is allowed by the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Tech Invite’s time-based validity condition into the system taught by Won, Park, and Fard, in order to improve the accuracy and timelessness of CAG access control. Doing so would allow the UE to evaluate CAG-ID validity dynamically based on current time, enabling more efficient and policy-compliant access decisions.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Won, Park and Fard discloses the claimed invention but do not disclose wherein the validity information includes only location validity information, wherein the validity criteria are met if the location validity information matches a current location of the UE, and wherein the validity criteria are not met if the location validity information does not match the current location of the UE (Par. 5.30.2.3; Validity information optionally consists of location information for which access to the UE is allowed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Tech-Invite with Won, Park, and Fard to enhance the CAG access logic by allowing access based on location. Doing so would provide control useful for location-specific services or access zones.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Won, Park and Fard discloses the claimed invention but do not disclose wherein the validity information includes both time validity information and location validity information, wherein the validity criteria are met if the time validity information matches a current time of the UE and the location validity information matches a current location of the UE, and wherein the validity criteria are not met if the time validity information does not match the current time of the UE or the location validity information does not match the current location of the UE (Par. 5.30.2.4.2; If both location and time validity information is available, validity conditions are met when both location and time validity conditions are met).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Tech-Invite with Won, Park, and Fard to enable a CAG access control mechanism that accounts for both temporal and spatial constraints. Doing so would allow the network and UE to enforce stricter access policies thereby improving security, service targeting, and resource allocation for CAG-enabled deployments.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 18 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 19 therefore the limitations are addressed.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 20 therefore the limitations are addressed.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/F.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648