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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16, 21, and 23 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16, 21, and 23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, 14-16, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub No.: US-20220046424-A1 (herein “Edge”), and further in view of Pub No.: US-20210144539-A1 (herein “Haris”).
Claims 1 and 11
Consider claim 1, Edge teaches a network selection method, comprising:
initiating, by User Equipment (UE), a registration process for a first network (see Edge Fig. 9, [0131]-[0132] the UE selects a PLMN and sends NAS Registration Request message)
receiving by the UE first information sent by a core network element in a case that the first network with which the UE requests registration is unable to provide service for the UE, wherein the core network element comprises an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) entity, the first information is carried in a deregistration request message in a deregistration process initiated by the core network element (see Edge Fig. 10, [0158], [0161] note the AMF sends NAS deregistration request including the UE country using the MCC, then the UE may attempt to access a PLMN in the country of the UE); and the first information comprises area information of the UE (see Edge Fig. 9, [0137], note stage 12 the RRC Reject or RRC release message indicating the Mobile Country Code (MCC). Also see Fig. 10, [0158] note NAS deregistration request including the UE country using the MCC); and
re-determining, by the UE, a target network based on the first information (see Edge Fig. 9, [0124]-[0128], [0137], [0161] note stage 6 where UE selects a radio cell/PLMN based on the provided MCC).
Edge fails to teach “wherein the Namf_Communication_N1MessageNotify_message carries the current location information of the UE determined by the UE. However, Haris teaches if periodic or triggered location is being supported, the UE 802 may send an LCS supplementary services event report message to the LMF 810 which is transferred via the serving AMF 808 and is delivered to the LMF 810 using an Namf_Communication_N1MessageNotify service operation (see Haris Fig. 8A, [0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include the recited teaching of Haris. Such a modification would improve Edge by optimizing satellite based communication systems for providing common services to end users (see Haris [0004]-[0005]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2 and 12
Consider claim 2, Edge as modified by Haris teaches wherein the area information of the UE comprises: a Mobile Country Code (MCC) (see Edge [0137], [0158] note MCC).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 2.
Claims 4 and 14
Consider claim 4, Edge as modified by Haris teaches wherein re-determining, by the UE, the target network based on the first information comprises: re-determining, by the UE, the target network based on the area information of the UE in the first information (see Edge Fig. 9, [0124]-[0128] note stage 6 where UE selects a radio cell/PLMN based on the list of PLMNs indicated by the MCC).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15
Consider claim 5, Edge teaches A network selection method, comprising:
after a registration process for a first network is initiated by User Equipment (UE) (see Edge Fig. 9, [0131]-[0132] the UE selects a PLMN and sends NAS Registration Request message), sending, by a core network element, first information to the UE in a case that the first network with which the UE requests registration is unable to provide service for the UE (see Edge Fig. 9, [0137] note when the country is not supported by the gNB or does not match the country for the selected PLMN, returning a RRC Reject or RRC Release message to the UE indicating the MCC where the UE is located. Also see Fig. 10, [0158] note NAS deregistration request including the UE country using the MCC), wherein the core network element comprises an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) entity, the first information is carried in a deregistration request message in a deregistration process initiated by the core network element (see Edge Fig. 10, [0158], [0161] note the AMF sends NAS deregistration request including the UE country, MCC, then the UE mage attempt to access a PLMN in the country of the UE); and
wherein the first information comprises area information of the UE, and the first information is used for the UE to re-determine a target network and register with a target network (see Edge Fig. 9, [0124]-[0128], [0137], [0161] note stage 6 where UE selects a radio cell/PLMN based on the provided MCC).
Edge fails to teach “wherein the Namf_Communication_N1MessageNotify_message carries the current location information of the UE determined by the UE. However, Haris teaches if periodic or triggered location is being supported, the UE 802 may send an LCS supplementary services event report message to the LMF 810 which is transferred via the serving AMF 808 and is delivered to the LMF 810 using an Namf_Communication_N1MessageNotify service operation (see Haris Fig. 8A, [0152]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include the recited teaching of Haris. Such a modification would improve Edge by optimizing satellite based communication systems for providing common services to end users (see Haris [0004]-[0005]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16
Consider claim 6, Edge as modified by Haris teaches wherein the area information of the UE comprises: a Mobile Country Code (MCC) (see Edge [0137], [0158] note MCC).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 6.
Claims 21 and 23
Consider claim 21, Edge as modified by Haris teaches wherein the case that the first network with which the UE requests registration is unable to provide service for the UE comprises: a core network selected by the UE is unable to provide service to for the UE (see Edge Fig. 9, [0131]-[0132], [0157]-[0158] note the UE selects the PLMN and sends NAS Registration for the selected PLMN, however the country for the selected PLMN does not match with the UE country. The gNB returns an RRC Reject and/or the AMF returns a NAS Deregistration Request).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 21.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS C HAMMONDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISON T. SLATER can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
/MARCUS HAMMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647