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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection overcomes Applicant’s arguments because Hong teaches that the UE receives MDT measurement configuration information from the base station and performs MDT measurements based on that configuration, which defines and restricts the scope or area in which MDT measurements are performed by limiting the measurements to the portions of the network associated with the configured network slice. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the configuration message effectively restricts where MDT measurements are conducted because the UE performs measurements only within the coverage regions relevant to that slice deployment and optimization. Additionally, the combination with Lindheimer is proper and does not change Hong’s principle of operation, because Lindheimer merely provides well-known mechanisms for identifying and operating in non-public networks through SNPN identifiers and CAG lists that may be included in configuration signaling. Incorporating these identifiers into Hong’s MDT configuration message simply enables the same MDT measurement procedure to operate in NPN/SNPN environments while preserving Hong’s objective of collecting MDT measurements for network optimization, thereby rendering the claimed subject matter obvious.
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.
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 29-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20230354059 A1) in view of Lindheimer et al. (US 20230247525 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Hong teaches a wireless communication method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment, a message that restricts an area for the user equipment to perform a minimization drive test (MDT) (Paragraph 33, 37, 49, 54, 83, These passages teach that the UE receives MDT measurement configuration information and that each network slice corresponds to a determined physical coverage area, such that the MDT configuration defines the geographic coverage context in which MDT measurements are performed, thereby restricting the MDT measurement area via slice-area association); and performing a measurement for the MDT based on the message (Paragraph 41, 55, 87, 108, These passages explicitly disclose that the UE performs MDT measurement based on the received MDT measurement configuration information).
Hong does not explicitly teach the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN, and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier, or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list.
However, Lindheimer et al. teaches the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN (Paragraph 32, 34, 86, The UE is explicitly described as configured to operate on an NPN or SNPN access mode), and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier (Paragraph 32, 35, 44, SNPN identifiers are specifically described as PLMN ID plus Network ID), or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list (Paragraph 31, 35, 44, The disclosure explicitly provides for CAG lists including PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN, and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier, or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list as taught by Lindheimer et al. in the system of Hong, so that it would enable the MDT functionality of Hong to be applied in NPN/SNPN environments with appropriate network identifiers and access control lists for accurate and efficient measurement and testing.
Regarding claim 30, Hong teaches the user equipment is registered under a SNPN network or the user equipment is registered under a PNI-NPN network (Paragraph 30, 33, 35, 36, 44, 45, The UE is linked to specific network slices identified in configuration and capability information, which corresponds to being registered under either a SNPN or PNI-NPN network).
Regarding claim 31, Hong teaches the one or more SNPN identifiers are used by the user equipment registered under a SNPN network to restrict the area in which the user equipment performs the measurement for the MDT (Paragraph 33, 35, 41, 49, The passage teaches that the UE registered to a network uses identifiers of network slices (analogous to SNPN identifiers) within MDT configuration to determine supported or unsupported slices mapped to specific base stations or areas, and thereby restricts the geographic area in which MDT measurements are performed).
Regarding claim 32, Hong teaches the CAG list is used by the user equipment registered under a PNI-NPN network to restrict the area in which the user equipment performs the measurement for the MDT (Paragraph 33, 35, 38, 43, shows the UE receives slice/area identifiers as MDT configuration and then performs MDT only within those areas, teaching restriction of measurement using a list like the claimed CAG list).
Regarding claim 33, Hong teaches the message includes a cell global identifier list, a tracking area code list, and a tracking area identity list (Paragraph 35, 44, 65, 89, The passages show the message includes base station identifiers (cell global ID list), TA identifiers (tracking area code list), and TA-slice correspondences (tracking area identity list)).
Regarding claim 34, Hong teaches the message is received via a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signal (Paragraph 53, 54, 67, 97, These passages show the base station sends and the UE receives MDT configuration information through signaling, which corresponds to receiving the message via a dedicated RRC signal).
Regarding claim 35, Hong teaches an apparatus for wireless communication comprising at least one processor, configured to cause the apparatus to implement a method, comprising: receive, by a user equipment, a message that restricts an area for the user equipment to perform a minimization drive test (MDT) (Paragraph 33, 37, 49, 54, 83, These passages teach that the UE receives MDT measurement configuration information and that each network slice corresponds to a determined physical coverage area, such that the MDT configuration defines the geographic coverage context in which MDT measurements are performed, thereby restricting the MDT measurement area via slice-area association); and perform a measurement for the MDT based on the message (Paragraph 41, 55, 87, 108, These passages explicitly disclose that the UE performs MDT measurement based on the received MDT measurement configuration information).
Hong does not explicitly teach the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN, and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier, or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list.
However, Lindheimer et al. teaches the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN (Paragraph 32, 34, 86, The UE is explicitly described as configured to operate on an NPN or SNPN access mode), and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier (Paragraph 32, 35, 44, SNPN identifiers are specifically described as PLMN ID plus Network ID), or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list (Paragraph 31, 35, 44, The disclosure explicitly provides for CAG lists including PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN, and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier, or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list as taught by Lindheimer et al. in the system of Hong, so that it would enable the MDT functionality of Hong to be applied in NPN/SNPN environments with appropriate network identifiers and access control lists for accurate and efficient measurement and testing.
Regarding claim 36, Hong teaches the user equipment is registered under a SNPN network or the user equipment is registered under a PNI-NPN network (Paragraph 30, 33, 35, 36, 44, 45, The UE is linked to specific network slices identified in configuration and capability information, which corresponds to being registered under either a SNPN or PNI-NPN network).
Regarding claim 37, Hong teaches the one or more SNPN identifiers are used by the user equipment registered under a SNPN network to restrict the area in which the user equipment performs the measurement for the MDT (Paragraph 33, 35, 41, 49, The passage teaches that the UE registered to a network uses identifiers of network slices (analogous to SNPN identifiers) within MDT configuration to determine supported or unsupported slices mapped to specific base stations or areas, and thereby restricts the geographic area in which MDT measurements are performed).
Regarding claim 38, Hong teaches the CAG list is used by the user equipment registered under a PNI-NPN network to restrict the area in which the user equipment performs the measurement for the MDT (Paragraph 33, 35, 38, 43, shows the UE receives slice/area identifiers as MDT configuration and then performs MDT only within those areas, teaching restriction of measurement using a list like the claimed CAG list).
Regarding claim 39, Hong teaches the message includes a cell global identifier list, a tracking area code list, and a tracking area identity list (Paragraph 35, 44, 65, 89, The passages show the message includes base station identifiers (cell global ID list), TA identifiers (tracking area code list), and TA-slice correspondences (tracking area identity list)).
Regarding claim 40, Hong teaches the message is received via a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signal (Paragraph 53, 54, 67, 97, These passages show the base station sends and the UE receives MDT configuration information through signaling, which corresponds to receiving the message via a dedicated RRC signal).
Regarding claim 41, Hong teaches a non-transitory computer readable program storage medium having code stored thereon, the code, when executed by at least one processor, causing the at least one processor to configure a user equipment to implement a method, comprising: receiving, by the user equipment, a message that restricts an area for the user equipment to perform a minimization drive test (MDT) (Paragraph 33, 37, 49, 54, 83, These passages teach that the UE receives MDT measurement configuration information and that each network slice corresponds to a determined physical coverage area, such that the MDT configuration defines the geographic coverage context in which MDT measurements are performed, thereby restricting the MDT measurement area via slice-area association); and performing a measurement for the MDT based on the message (Paragraph 41, 55, 87, 108, These passages explicitly disclose that the UE performs MDT measurement based on the received MDT measurement configuration information).
Hong does not explicitly teach the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN, and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier, or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list.
However, Lindheimer et al. teaches the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN (Paragraph 32, 34, 86, The UE is explicitly described as configured to operate on an NPN or SNPN access mode), and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier (Paragraph 32, 35, 44, SNPN identifiers are specifically described as PLMN ID plus Network ID), or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list (Paragraph 31, 35, 44, The disclosure explicitly provides for CAG lists including PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the user equipment is configured to operate on a non-public network, NPN, and wherein the message includes: one or more stand-alone non-public network (SNPN) identifiers that equal to a public land mobile network (PLMN) identifier plus a network identifier, or a closed access group (CAG) list which includes one or more PLMN identifiers associated with the CAG list as taught by Lindheimer et al. in the system of Hong, so that it would enable the MDT functionality of Hong to be applied in NPN/SNPN environments with appropriate network identifiers and access control lists for accurate and efficient measurement and testing.
Regarding claim 42, Hong teaches the user equipment is registered under a SNPN network or the user equipment is registered under a PNI-NPN network (Paragraph 30, 33, 35, 36, 44, 45, The UE is linked to specific network slices identified in configuration and capability information, which corresponds to being registered under either a SNPN or PNI-NPN network).
Regarding claim 43, Hong teaches the one or more SNPN identifiers are used by the user equipment registered under a SNPN network to restrict the area in which the user equipment performs the measurement for the MDT (Paragraph 33, 35, 41, 49, The passage teaches that the UE registered to a network uses identifiers of network slices (analogous to SNPN identifiers) within MDT configuration to determine supported or unsupported slices mapped to specific base stations or areas, and thereby restricts the geographic area in which MDT measurements are performed).
Regarding claim 44, Hong teaches the CAG list is used by the user equipment registered under a PNI-NPN network to restrict the area in which the user equipment performs the measurement for the MDT (Paragraph 33, 35, 38, 43, shows the UE receives slice/area identifiers as MDT configuration and then performs MDT only within those areas, teaching restriction of measurement using a list like the claimed CAG list).
Regarding claim 45, Hong teaches the message includes a cell global identifier list, a tracking area code list, and a tracking area identity list (Paragraph 35, 44, 65, 89, The passages show the message includes base station identifiers (cell global ID list), TA identifiers (tracking area code list), and TA-slice correspondences (tracking area identity list)).
Regarding claim 46, Hong teaches the message is received via a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signal (Paragraph 53, 54, 67, 97, These passages show the base station sends and the UE receives MDT configuration information through signaling, which corresponds to receiving the message via a dedicated RRC signal).
Allowable Subject Matter
The applicant could consider adding concepts clarifying that the message further includes a CAG only indicator that explicitly limits MDT measurements to cells broadcasting CAG IDs included in the CAG list, or a CAG except indicator that requires MDT measurements to be performed for all cells except those associated with specified CAG IDs, thereby more precisely defining how the restricted area is applied. The claim could also incorporate distinctions based on UE registration type, such as specifying that the UE is registered under an SNPN or a PNI-NPN and, for PNI-NPN, that the UE belongs to a first type permitted to camp only on CAG cells or a second type permitted to camp on both CAG and public cells, with MDT measurement behavior conditioned on that type. Additional concepts could include defining that the message may include a cell global identifier list, tracking area code list, or tracking area identity list to geographically bound the MDT area, or that the message is received via dedicated or broadcast RRC signaling. The applicant might also add that the UE determines whether neighbor cells belong to a registered or selected network by comparing broadcast network identifiers with stored identifiers, logs membership information locally, and reports such information (e.g., PCI, measurement quality, number of SSBs, or membership indicator) in response to a trigger message, thereby tying the MDT restriction to specific logging, comparison, and reporting procedures described in the specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
VAN DER VELDE (US 20220191705 A1)
Kim (US 20190159076 A1)
Cimpu et al. (US 20230269771 A1)
Ramachandra et al. (US 20230057408 A1)
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 ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464