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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment made dated 6/19/2026 does not contain any new matter, and has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the newly amended limiations are still disclosed by Kunz, as explained below.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references disclose the newly amended independent claims 1, 8 and 14.
Examiner would like to respectfully disagree and assert that Kunz et al. does disclose the newly amended claims.
For example, Kunz in combination with Klatt does disclose said limitations of
transmitting a registration request associated with the MCC information to the network device ([0055]-[0057]: UE sending a registration request to AMF/DB for authentication; [0056]: the UE sending its device ID to AMF for authentication; [0057]: using the device ID to determine the associated MCC information for the UE within the SUPI); and
receiving from the network device a registration reject with the MCC information plus a reject cause indication indicating that the network device is unable to provide service to the UE or to operate in a location or country where the UE is located ([0057]-[0058], [0071]-[0072]: AMF rejecting the registration request having a non-supported SUPI/MCC which includes SUPI information; [0058]: the AMF sending a registration reject message to the UE when it is not of the same PLMN as the AMF, hence the rejection cause would be that, furthermore, said message includes the same SUPI information that was sent to the AMF earlier indicating the indication of a network the UE belongs. The UE can further use said SUPI information to initiate another registration to the PLMN that was indicated in the rejection message),
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Kunz’s disclosure to provide proper authentication to UE to provide communication services.
Therefore, due to the broadness of the claims language, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance, and are rejected as shown below.
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) 1-4, 8-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatt et al. (US 9,344,959; hereinafter Klatt) in view of Kunz et al. (US 2020/0344678; hereinafter Kunz).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14, Klatt discloses a wireless communication method by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
being configured with a mobile country code (MCC) information from a network device (Col 1, lines 53-63: UE containing a preferred PLMN list within the USIM; Col 7, lines 39-49: the UE contains the PLMN identity which equates to the MCC + MNC); and
retaining the MCC information even if the UE moves out of a country or a region where the MCC information is provided (Col 2, lines 38-59: wherein the PLMN information, which contains the MCC information, is retained through UE border crossings to provide continuous service with preferred PLMNs);
Klatt is unclear about the limitations of
transmitting a registration request associated with the MCC information to the network device; and
receiving from the network device a registration reject with the MCC information plus a reject cause indication indicating that the network device is unable to provide service to the UE or to operate in a location or country where the UE is located,
wherein the MCC information is associated by the UE with the registration reject.
However, Kunz in combination does disclose said limitations of
transmitting a registration request associated with the MCC information to the network device ([0055]-[0057]: UE sending a registration request to AMF/DB for authentication; [0056]: the UE sending its device ID to AMF for authentication; [0057]: using the device ID to determine the associated MCC information for the UE within the SUPI); and
receiving from the network device a registration reject with the MCC information plus a reject cause indication indicating that the network device is unable to provide service to the UE or to operate in a location or country where the UE is located ([0057]-[0058], [0071]-[0072]: AMF rejecting the registration request having a non-supported SUPI/MCC which includes SUPI information; [0058]: the AMF sending a registration reject message to the UE when it is not of the same PLMN as the AMF, hence the rejection cause would be that, furthermore, said message includes the same SUPI information that was sent to the AMF earlier indicating the indication of a network the UE belongs. The UE can further use said SUPI information to initiate another registration to the PLMN that was indicated in the rejection message),
wherein the MCC information is associated by the UE with the registration reject ([0057]-[0058], [0071]-[0072]: AMF rejecting the registration request having a non-supported SUPI/MCC which includes the SUPI information).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Kunz’s disclosure to provide proper authentication to UE to provide communication services.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Klatt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the MCC information comprises a list of MCCs or a location of the list of MCCs (Col 5, lines 1-5: list of PLMNs).
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 16, Klatt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a public land mobile network (PLMN) selection using the MCC information retained by the UE, wherein the PLMN selection comprises an automatic PLMN selection (Col 5, lines 1-7: automatic PLMN selection mode).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 17, Klatt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the UE comprises a mobile equipment (ME) and a universal subscriber identity module (USIM), and the MCC information is retained in the ME, the USIM, or the ME and the USIM (Col 1, lines 53-63: UE containing a preferred PLMN list within the USIM).
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klatt in view of Kunz in further view of Catovic et al. (US 2018/0020417; hereinafter Catovic).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 18 Klatt in view of Kunz discloses all the particulars of the claims except further comprising deleting the MCC information when the USIM is changed.
However, Catovic does disclose the limitation of deleting the MCC information when the USIM is changed ([0078]: deleting PLMNs when removing/changing SIM/USIM).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Catovi’s disclosure to provide up to date PLMNs for connectivity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights