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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/20/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/20/26 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 13-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0156553 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0136721 A1).
Consider claim 1, Kim teaches a method (abstract) comprising:
determining that a user equipment (UE) device connected to a first cellular radio access network is in an area covered by both the first cellular radio access network and a second cellular radio access network (Fig. 13 and paragraph 207, the UE is in the coverage area of both the 1st PLMN and 2nd PLMN and paragraph 53-54, the UE connects to the home base station),
wherein the first cellular radio access network is operated by a first service provider and the second cellular radio access network is operated by a second service provider (the 1st PLMN belongs to the 1st operator and the 2nd PLMN belongs to the 2nd operator);
identifying, at the UE device, that the second cellular radio access network is broadcasting an identifier associated with the first service provider (Fig. 13, step 0 and paragraph 175, 210 and 209, the SIB include information of the 1st PLMN); and
performing a handover of the UE device from the first cellular radio access network to the second cellular radio access network using the identifier associated with the first service provider (Fig. 13, step 1 and paragraph 210, the UE sends a registration request to the 2nd PLMN).
Kim does not teach determining that the identifier is included in a list of candidate identifiers stored at the UE device; and wherein other identifiers included in the list of candidate identifiers are associated with the first service provider and are broadcasted by other service providers that operate other cellular radio access networks.
Kumar further teaches determining that the identifier is included in a list of candidate identifiers stored at the UE device; and wherein other identifiers included in the list of candidate identifiers are associated with the first service provider and are broadcasted by other service providers that operate other cellular radio access networks (paragraph 138 and 141, the UE stores a list of BS capable of EN-DC and the identifier and capability of the BS received in the broadcasted SIB would match the list in order for the UE to connect to the BS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of effectively handover to the correct BS for proper communication.
Consider claims 13 and 20, claims 13 and 20 having similar limitations as claim 1, therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons claim 1 is rejected.
Consider claims 2, Kim also teaches wherein the UE device is subscribed to the first service provider (Fig. 13, step 2 and paragraph 211, the UE is subscribed to the 1st PLMN).
Consider claims 3 and 14, Kim also teaches identifying, at the second cellular radio access network, that the UE device is subscribed to the first service provider rather than the second service provider based on the identifier (paragraph 176-179, the UE is subscribed to the 1st PLMN not the 2nd PLMN and the 2nd PLMN knows about the subscription).
Consider claims 4 and 15, Kim also teaches wherein the identifier is a multi-operator core networks (MOCN) PLMN (paragraph 209, the SIB including information of the 1st PLMN).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2023/0156553 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0136721 A1) and further in view of Chun (US 2022/0272651 A1).
Consider claims 11 and 18, Kim and Kumar do not teach reestablishing a connection of the UE device with the first cellular radio access network subsequent to performing the handover of the UE device from the first cellular radio access network to the second cellular radio access network.
Chun further teaches reestablishing a connection of the UE device with the first cellular radio access network subsequent to performing the handover of the UE device from the first cellular radio access network to the second cellular radio access network (Fig. 9, steps 2-8 and paragraph 278, after the PLMN A recovers the PLMN A notifies the PLMN B in turn to notifies the UE to reconnect back to the PLMN A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of continue serving the UE via the PLMN A which the UE subscribes to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN YE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5258. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-8:00.
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 5712705371. 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.
/JUSTIN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644 4/24/26
Prosecution Insights