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 .
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.
Claims 1-3,5,11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the 3GPP standards document “change request” meeting #139E from June 2020 (5 page NPL cited in the IDS of 4-21-23 in the instant application) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2021/0144539 to Edge and U.S. Patent Pub. 2018/0199398 to Dao.
Regarding claim 1, which recites:
“receiving, by a network device, public land mobile network (PLMN) information, wherein the PLMN information indicates a first PLMN selected by a terminal device, and the network device is an access network device or an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity;
obtaining, by the network device, location information of the terminal device and
determining, by the network device based on the location information and country information that corresponds to the first PLMN, whether the terminal device is allowed to access the first PLMN” see section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite”, this section which begins on page 2 states:
“The network should verify the UE location during registration procedure over satellite access, as it cannot be guaranteed that the UE would always be aware of its present location. When the UE accessing over satellite RAT Type initiates Registration Procedure, the AMF can trigger UE positioning procedure to verify that the UE is accessing PLMN in the same country as the present UE location. The AMF verifies all registration criteria as usual, but with the additional verification whether the PLMN selected by the UE matches with the country of the UE location.
If UE is attempting to register to PLMN that it is not allowed to access in the present UE location (e.g. PLMN of different country than the present UE location), the AMF responds with REGISTRATION REJECT, including suitable cause value to tell the UE that the selected PLMN is not allowed in the present UE location. Based on the UE location, the AMF may also include a hint of country code (MCC) or list of PLMN codes (MCC+MNC) or list of PLMN + RAT | codes (MCC+MNC+RAT).”
Therefore, this 3GPP change request document includes the concept that the AMF compares the received and requested PLMN with the UE location. As this document does not include description of the recited structures, Edge is added to more completely show and describe these structures. Also, regarding claims 1 and 11, Edge teaches an access control method for a terminal device, the method comprising:
receiving, by a network device, public land mobile network (PLMN) information, wherein the PLMN information indicates a first PLMN selected by a terminal device, and the network device is an access network device or an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (see Fig. 8A step 13 where the sNB 806 receives the PLMN selected by the UE 802, as described in section [0141]);
obtaining, by the network device, location information of the terminal device (see steps 13 and 14 in Fig. 8A, where the location of the UE is obtained as described in sections [0142] to [0143]); and
determining, by the network device based on the location information and country information that corresponds to the first PLMN, whether the terminal device is allowed to access the first PLMN (see steps 15-17 in Fig. 8A, as described in sections [0143] to [0146] (especially [0144]), which teaches the UE location is compared to the country of the selected PLMN, and when they match the UE is admitted and when they don’t match, the UE is rejected from the network (as in step 15).
Therefore, as the 3GPP change request document teaches the recited features of comparing the requested PLMN with the UE location, and as Edge also teaches similar features (performed by the recited structures), it would have been obvious to include these structures of Edge in the 3GPP document, as these are conventionally used devices.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1 now reciting “wherein the network device is the access network device, and after the determining, by the network device, that the terminal device is not allowed to access the first PLMN, the method further comprises:
sending, by the network device, an radio resource control (RRC) release request message to the AMF entity, wherein the RRC release request message is for requesting the AMF entity to release the terminal device”, as 3GPP/Edge do not explicitly teach the eNBs sending an RRC release message to the AMF after rejection, Dao is added.
In an analogous art Dao teaches a wireless system which includes an access device (RAN node base station) communicating with an AMF to admit or release connections to a UE. As described in section [0241], after the RAN node 204 determines that the UE is to be released, an RRC release message is transmitted to the AMF, as recited.
Therefore, as 3GPP/Edge and Dao teach eNBs and AMFs releasing/rejecting the UE connections, and as Dao explicitly teaches the RAN node sending the RRC release message to the AMF, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify 3GPP/Edge to include the RRC release message of Dao, as once 3GPP/Edge determines to reject the UE, it is conventional to release its connection to save resources, as desired.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, which recite “wherein the network device is the AMF entity, and the obtaining, by the network device, location information of the terminal device comprises: transmitting, by the network device, the location information to the AMF, wherein the location information is obtained by the network device by positioning the terminal device”, as described above, see section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite” and see for example, section [0142] which teaches that the sNB may obtain the location of the UE using the DL location measurement signals obtained from the UE (and/or may use an attached or embedded location management function (LMF) to obtain the UE location), where the sNB was the “network device” of claim 1. Also, as shown in step 1b in Fig. 8A and as section [0129] teaches that both/either the sNB or the AMF receives the mapping of locations of tracking areas, etc., which also renders obvious to modify the steps of claim 1 as performed by the network access device (sNB) to be performed by the AMF as in the 3GPP, as either device has the capability and/or capacity to do this, and there are benefits to offloading this determination to the AMF (to reduce the base station loading).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, which recite “wherein the determining, by the network device based on the location information and country information that corresponds to the first PLMN, whether the terminal device is allowed to access the first PLMN comprises: in response to determining that the country information corresponding to the location information is inconsistent with the country information corresponding to the first PLMN, determining, by the network device, that the terminal device is not allowed to access the first PLMN”, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, see section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite”, and see section [0144] of Edge which teaches that the UE is not allowed onto the network when the country and location are “inconsistent” as recited.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, which recite “wherein the RRC release request message carries at least either of the following information: a release cause and a PLMN identity that is allowed to be selected by the terminal device, and the release cause is that the first PLMN is not a PLMN of a country in which the terminal device is located”, see section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite”, and see section [0144] of Edge, which teach that the rejection cause is that the UE location does not match the selected network, as recited.
Claims 6, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP/Edge and Dao as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0174464 to Ohlsson.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, which recite “wherein after the sending, by the network device, an RRC release request message to an AMF entity, the method further comprises: receiving, by the network device, a context release command sent by the AMF entity, wherein the context release command instructs the network device to release an RRC connection of the terminal device, the context release command carries a release cause, and the release cause is that the first PLMN is not a PLMN of a country in which the terminal device is located; and sending, by the network device, an RRC release message to the terminal device, wherein the release message carries a PLMN identity that is allowed to be selected by the terminal device”, as described above, section [0243] of Dao teaches an RRC release context message sent from the AMF node to the RAN “network device”) and section [0243] of Dao also teaches an RRC release sent from the RAN node to the UE (where Edge teaches the cause reason is inconsistent country).
Therefore, as Edge and Dao do not explicitly teach the last feature of claim 6, that “the RRC release message sent to the UE includes a PLMN that the UE is allowed to select”, Ohlsson is added.
In an analogous art Ohlsson teaches a wireless system which includes an access device (RAN node base station) communicating with an AMF to admit or release connections to a UE. As described in section [0028], after the RAN node 206 determines that the UE is to be released, an “RRC release message is transmitted to the UE indicating the identity of PLMN which the UE is able to select”, as recited.
Therefore, as both 3GPP/ Edge and Dao teach eNBs and AMFs releasing or rejecting UE connections, and as Ohlsson explicitly teaches the RAN node sending the RRC release message to the UE which includes a PLMN that the UE may access, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Edge to include the RRC release message of Ohlsson, as once Edge/Dao determine to release the UE, it is conventional and helpful to inform the UE of networks which will permit access, (as in Ohlsson), so as minimize access attempts to networks which will not permit UE access, as is desired.
Regarding independent claim 19, which recites “A terminal device comprising:
at least one processor; and
one or more non-transitory memories including computer instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to perform operations comprising:
sending public land mobile network (PLMN) information to an access network device, wherein the PLMN information indicates a PLMN selected by the terminal device; and receiving a radio resource control (RRC) release message sent by the access network device, wherein the RRC release message is used to release an RRC connection of the terminal device, the RRC release message carries at least either of the following information: a release cause and a PLMN identity that is allowed to be selected by the terminal device, and the release cause is that the PLMN selected by the terminal device is not a PLMN of a country in which the terminal device is located”,
this claim incorporates the features of claims 1, 4 and 6 but from the perspective of the UE “user equipment terminal” (as opposed to the network device of claim 1). Therefore, see section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite”, and see the rejection of these features as described above, where the UE terminal 802 is shown in Fig. 8A of Edge.
Claims 7-8, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP/Edge as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2013/0053033 to Jokinen.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, which recite “wherein the network device is the access network device, and after the determining, by the network device, that the terminal device is not allowed to access the first PLMN, the method further comprises:
handing over, by the access network device, the terminal device to a target cell based on the location information of the terminal device, wherein a country corresponding to at least one PLMN identity of the target cell is the same as a country corresponding to the location information of the terminal device”, although section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite”, and section [0144] of Edge teach that the UE rejection message includes the mobile country code (MCC) of the location of the UE (but not a “PLMN” per se), Jokinen is added.
In an analogous art, Jokinen teaches a wireless system which provides handovers between UEs and access devices (base stations BS). As described in section [0088], Jokinen teaches that a UE is handed over to a PLMN where it is located (based on a received location update from the UE), where the handover commands include the target PLMN where the UE is currently located.
Therefore, as Edge teaches sending to the UE an MCC upon rejection of handover, and as Jokinen explicitly teaches sending the UE a target network PLMN (based on its location matching the PLMN), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Edge to include the target PLMN, as recited, as Edge teaches that it is helpful to provide the UE information about its location (MCC) so the next handover attempt by the UE will be based on its location matching the PLMN to which it is attempting to access (which minimizes unsuccessful network access attempts), as taught in Jokinen.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, which recite “wherein the method further comprises: sending, by the network device, a handover cause to an access network device corresponding to the target cell or an AMF entity connected to an access network device corresponding to the target cell, wherein the handover cause is that the first PLMN is not a PLMN of a country in which the terminal device is located”, as described above, see section 6.13.2.4 “AMF processing of Registration Request from UE accessing over satellite”, and see section [0144] of Edge teaches the cause is network inconsistency (signal 15 in Fig. 8A), and see Fig. 2 and sections [0077], [0080] to [0088] of Jokinen, which teach handover commands sent to the target network (access network device), so the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature.
Regarding claim 20, which recites “wherein the operations further comprise: after the receiving a radio resource control RRC release message sent by the access network device, reselecting a PLMN based on the PLMN identity that is allowed to be selected by the terminal device”, as described above, after Ohlsson sends the PLMN, Ohlsson reselects this new PLMN so the emergency call can be completed.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP/Edge and as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2022/0201638 to Arrobo Vidal.
Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein the network device is the AMF entity, and after the determining, by the network device, that the terminal device is not allowed to access the first PLMN, the method further comprises: receiving, by the network device, a context release command from the AMF entity, wherein the context release command instructs the access network device to release the terminal device”, as 3GPP and Edge do not explicitly teach the context release command, Arrobo Vidal is added.
In an analogous art Arrobo Vidal teaches a wireless system which includes an access device (RAN node base station) communicating with an AMF to admit or release connections to a UE. As described in section [0126], after the AMF determines that the UE is to be released, a context release command is transmitted to the RAN base station node, as now recited.
Therefore, as both 3GPP/Edge teach eNBs and AMFs releasing or rejecting UE connections, and as Arrobo Vidal explicitly teaches the AMF sending a context release command to the access network device, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify 3GPP/Edge to include the context release message of Arrobo Vidal, as once 3GPP/Edge/Dao determine to release the UE, it is conventional and helpful to inform the RAN node to release the context/connection resources, for the reason to as save resources, as is conventional and desired
Regarding claim 10, which recites “wherein the context release command carries at least either of the following information: a release cause and a PLMN identity that is allowed to be selected by the terminal device, and the release cause is that the first PLMN is not a PLMN of a country in which the terminal device is located”, as 3GPP and section [0144] of Edge indicates that the PLMN is not the PLMN where the UE is located and as Arrobo Vidal teach the context release command sent to the access network device, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2013/0260748 to Li.
Regarding claims 21-22 which recite “determining that a country corresponding to the location information is different from a country corresponding to the first PLMN, and a distance between a location corresponding to the location information and a national boundary of the country corresponding to the first PLMN is greater than a distance threshold”, Li is added to show the italicized feature.
In an analogous art, Li teaches a wireless system which determines if a UE has roamed into another different country (Abstract). As described in section [0013], and as shown in steps S01, S02 and S03, Li teaches that a distance between a UE location and the country border is determined (and compared to a threshold).
Therefore, as 3GPP/Edge teach detecting location/country, and as Li teaches determining if the UE location is within a threshold distance away from the country border, it would have been obvious to modify Edge to include this feature of Li, as 3GPP/Edge teach that it is important to know the UE location and know its location relative to the country in which it is in, to ensure that the country which corresponds to the (MCC) matches the PLMN to which the UE is attempting access.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9-22-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s point that the message (in Dao) is transmitted “after” the RRC connection is released, it is noted that the claim language requires this and the RAN network device may send the UE an RRC release message, but an RRC release message must also be sent to the AMF. Therefore, even if the RAN node has determined to release (and/or it is after that release to the UE), as long as an RRC release message is sent from the RAN node to the AMF, the teachings in Dao still meet the recited feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646