Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's amendment filed on June 1, 2026. Claim 30 has been canceled Claim 31 has been newly added, therefore, claims 1-20 and 31 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
2. Claims 23-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 12, 2026.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
3. 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
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted within this application (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-6, 12-17 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG; Chenchen et al. (US 20220353798 A1), hereafter “YANG” in view of SETHI ANUJ et al. (WO 2023147059 A1), hereafter “SETHI.”
Consider claim 1. YANG discloses a first next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) node, comprising (see par. 0157: “a next generation radio access network node configuration update (NG-RAN node configuration update)”):
a memory storing processor-readable code; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to (see fig. 14, par. 0312: “first access network device may include at least one processor 1401, at least one communication interface 1402, and at least one memory 1403”):
receive, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a core network or a second NG-RAN node, a mobility restriction list including a list of equivalent standalone non-public networks (SNPNs) (see par. 0280; “The AMF includes an allowed CAG list (allowed CAG list) of the terminal device in a mobility restriction list (mobility restriction list) of the handover request (handover request) message, and sends the handover request message to the second access network device. If a CAG/PNI-NPN that can be accessed by the terminal device is not a CAG/PNI-NPN supported by any target cell, that is, the terminal device is not allowed to access the target cell, the second access network device includes, in a handover failure (handover failure) message, a CAG ID/PNI-NPN and/or an NID that can be supported by the target cell or the target PLMN of the target cell, and sends the handover failure message to the AMF. The AMF forwards, to the first access network device, the handover preparation failure message including the handover failure message. For another example, in an NG interface setup or update process, for example, by using an NG setup response (NG setup response) message and an AMF configuration update (AMF configuration update) message, the AMF notifies the first access network device and the second access network device of NID/SNPN information configured by the AMF.” Examiner’s Analysis: the AMF exchanges handover request messages between first and second access network; the handover request messages includes mobility restriction list and a list of SNPN).
YANG, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by SETHI, in analogous art: determining a mobility action for a user equipment (UE) connected to the first NG-RAN node based on the list of equivalent SNPNs of the mobility restriction list (see par. 0006: “The WTRLI may reselect between cells corresponding to equivalent hosting networks from the list of equivalent hosting networks without performing location updates based on the cells being associated with the common tracking area identity list. The WTRLI may receive a registration accept message, “The WTRU may select a second TAI from the list of one or more TAIs associated with a second cell that is associated with a second SNPN. The first SNPN and the second SNPN may be equivalent SNPNs.”” par. 0015: “The WTRLI may treat the different SNPNs as equivalent SNPNs for purposes of network selection, cell selection, cell re-selection, handover, and/or other types of mobility events. The 5G core network node (e.g., AMF) may provide Idle mode mobility info to WTRUs (e.g., via a RAN node(s)) for dedicated cell reselection.”); and performing an operation associated with the determined mobility action for the UE (see par. 0006: “The WTRU may transition from the first cell to the second cell, for example without triggering a mobility registration procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of YANG and have it include the teachings of SETHI. The motivation would have been in order to use a mobility target using equivalent SNPN information (see par. 0006).
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. YANG further discloses wherein the mobility restriction list includes one or more restrictions that apply to the list of equivalent SNPNs (see par. 0280: “If the AMF supports only one NID/SNPN, the AMF does not need to send the target NID/SNPN to the second access network device. If the target cell does not support the target NID/SNPN, the second access network device includes, in the handover failure (handover failure) message, the NID/SNPN and/or the PNI-NPN/CAG ID that can be supported by the target cell, and sends the handover failure message to the AMF”).
SETHI further discloses the list of equivalent SNPNs being equivalent to a serving SNPN (par. 0015: “The WTRLI may treat the different SNPNs as equivalent SNPNs for purposes of network selection, cell selection, cell re-selection, handover, and/or other types of mobility events. The 5G core network node (e.g., AMF) may provide Idle mode mobility info to WTRUs (e.g., via a RAN node(s)) for dedicated cell reselection.”). The motivation would have been in order to use a mobility target using equivalent SNPN information (see par. 0006).
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 2 above. YANG further discloses wherein the mobility restriction list includes a list of equivalent public land mobile networks (PLMNs) and the one or more restrictions also apply to the list of equivalent PLMNs (see par. 0185L “A CAG priority, a PLMN priority, an NID priority, and/or the like are/is configured in the context or subscription information of the terminal device, for example, the mobility restriction list (mobility restriction list), so that when serving the terminal device based on this, the first access network device preferentially schedules a resource and the like in one or some CAG cells”).
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 2 above. YANG further discloses wherein the one or more restrictions are dedicated to the list of equivalent SNPNs and do not apply to any list of equivalent PLMNs (see par. 0279: “the first access network device includes an allowed CAG list (allowed CAG list) of the terminal device in a mobility restriction list (mobility restriction list) of a handover message, and sends the handover message to the second access network device. If a CAG/PNI-NPN that can be accessed by the terminal device is not a CAG/PNI-NPN supported by any target cell”).
Consider claim 5 in view of claim 2 above. YANG further discloses wherein the one or more restrictions include a radio access technology (RAT) restriction, a forbidden area restriction, or a service area restriction (see par. 0168: “a mobility restriction list (mobility restriction list), forbidden area information (forbidden area information), service area information (Service Area Information), or information about priorities for the terminal device to access different networks”).
Consider claim 6 in view of claim 2 above. YANG further discloses wherein the mobility action for the UE includes a handover operation for the UE (see par. 0280: “AMF in time, after receiving the handover request message sent by the AMF, the second access network device may also be triggered to send a RAN configuration update (RAN configuration update) message, a NG reset (NG reset) message”).
Consider claim 12. YANG discloses method for wireless communication performed by a first next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) node, comprising (see par. 0157: “a next generation radio access network node configuration update (NG-RAN node configuration update)”):
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) of a core network or a second NG-RAN node, a mobility restriction list including a list of equivalent standalone non-public networks (SNPNs); (see par. 0280; “The AMF includes an allowed CAG list (allowed CAG list) of the terminal device in a mobility restriction list (mobility restriction list) of the handover request (handover request) message, and sends the handover request message to the second access network device. If a CAG/PNI-NPN that can be accessed by the terminal device is not a CAG/PNI-NPN supported by any target cell, that is, the terminal device is not allowed to access the target cell, the second access network device includes, in a handover failure (handover failure) message, a CAG ID/PNI-NPN and/or an NID that can be supported by the target cell or the target PLMN of the target cell, and sends the handover failure message to the AMF. The AMF forwards, to the first access network device, the handover preparation failure message including the handover failure message. For another example, in an NG interface setup or update process, for example, by using an NG setup response (NG setup response) message and an AMF configuration update (AMF configuration update) message, the AMF notifies the first access network device and the second access network device of NID/SNPN information configured by the AMF.” Examiner’s Analysis: the AMF exchanges hangover request messages between first and second access network; the hangover request messages includes mobility restriction list and a list of SNPN).
YANG, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by SETHI, in analogous art: determining a mobility action for a user equipment (UE) connected to the first NG-RAN node based on the list of equivalent SNPNs of the mobility restriction list (see par. 0006: “The WTRLI may reselect between cells corresponding to equivalent hosting networks from the list of equivalent hosting networks without performing location updates based on the cells being associated with the common tracking area identity list. The WTRLI may receive a registration accept message, “The WTRU may select a second TAI from the list of one or more TAIs associated with a second cell that is associated with a second SNPN. The first SNPN and the second SNPN may be equivalent SNPNs.”” par. 0015: “The WTRLI may treat the different SNPNs as equivalent SNPNs for purposes of network selection, cell selection, cell re-selection, handover, and/or other types of mobility events. The 5G core network node (e.g., AMF) may provide Idle mode mobility info to WTRUs (e.g., via a RAN node(s)) for dedicated cell reselection.”); and performing an operation associated with the determined mobility action for the UE (see par. 0006: “The WTRU may transition from the first cell to the second cell, for example without triggering a mobility registration procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of YANG and have it include the teachings of SETHI. The motivation would have been in order to use a mobility target using equivalent SNPN information (see par. 0006).
Consider claim 13, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 2. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 2.
Consider claim 14, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 3. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 3.
Consider claim 15, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 4. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 4.
Consider claim 16, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 5. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 5.
Consider claim 17, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 5. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 5.
Consider claim 31 in view of claim 1 above. YANG further discloses wherein the operation associated with the determined mobility action for the UE includes: transmission, to the AMF, of a handover required message including a SNPN ID that identifies a target SNPN of a handover operation; transmission, to a third NG-RAN node, of a handover request message including the SNPN ID that identifies the target SNPN of the handover operation; or transmission, to the third NG-RAN node, of a secondary node (s-node) addition request message including the SNPN ID that identifies the target SNPN of the handover operation (see par. 0145: “the ninth message includes the information about the priorities for accessing different networks supported by the first access network device, so that an AMF performs access control, resource scheduling, and the like based on the information. For example, for a first access network device that supports a public network and/or an NPN, the ninth message includes a priority for accessing the public network and/or the NPN network supported by the first access network device or priorities for accessing different NPNs, SNPNs, PNI-NPNs, NCDs, or CAGs supported by the first access network device. For another example, for a first access network device that supports only a PNI-NPN cell, the ninth message includes priorities for accessing different CAGs or PNI-NPNs supported by the first access network device. A CAG priority, a PLMN priority, an NID priority, and/or the like are/is configured in a cell, a PLMN, or a TA supported by the first access network device, to indicate that the AMF may preferentially schedule a resource and the like in one or some CAGs, PNI-NPNs, public networks, and/or SNPNs. Examiner’s Note: claim written in alternative format).
10. Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG in view of SETHI as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Falkenberg; Andreas (US 20240064592 A1), hereafter “Falkenberg.”
Consider claim 7 in view of claim 2 above, YANG, as modified by SETHI discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Falkenberg, in analogous art: wherein the mobility action for the UE includes a secondary cell group (SCG) selection for the UE during a dual connectivity procedure (see par. 0111: “NG-RAN node may store the information received in the Mobility Restriction List IE in the UE context; may use this information to determine a target for the UE during subsequent mobility action for which the NG-RAN node provides information about the target of the mobility action towards the UE, except when one of the PDU sessions has a particular ARP value in which case the information may not apply; may use this information to select a proper SCG during dual connectivity operation”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of YANG and SETHI and have it include the teachings of Falkenberg. The motivation would have been in order to use all available cells to prevent service interruption (see par. 0111).
Consider claim 18, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 7. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim(s) 8-11, 19-22 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.
Response to Argument
12. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 12 and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
13. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210235339 A1: discloses that a mobile communications system may be a public land mobile network (PLMN) run by a network operator providing a variety of service including voice, data, short messaging service (SMS), multimedia messaging service (MMS), emergency calls, etc.
US 20220361068 A1: discloses sending, by a first BS, a broadcast message, which comprises: a NID and a PLMN ID, which correspond to each of one or more SNPNs supported by the first BS; receiving, by the first BS.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights