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 with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (US 2024/0406188) hereinafter “Tiwari”, Watfa (2021/0306972), and Niemi et al. (2019/0320381) hereinafter “Niemi”.
As to claim 1, Tiwari discloses A method, comprising:
transmitting a REGISTRATION REQUEST (1. - Fig. 14) message by a User Equipment (UE) to a second network over a second access type, wherein the UE is not registered to a first network via a first access type (initial registration); see [0434];[0438]
receiving a REGISTRATION ACCEPT (21. - Fig. 14) message over the second access type from the second network, wherein the message carries a 5GS registration result information element (IE); see [0594]
deriving a 5GS registration result value that indicates whether the UE is registered to the first network and the second network (see [0596]); and
Tiwari fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art, Watfa discloses ignoring the 5GS registration result value (see [0225]-[0227], “UE may ignore…”) and considering the UE is not registered to the first network over the first access type (depending on priority). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Tiwari to include the steps of ignoring and considering as taught by Watfa for the purpose of prioritizing access.
Tiwari is silent on the deriving step based on the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status. In an analogous art, Niemi discloses [0061] the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status and [0062] deriving based thereon. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method such that the deriving step was based on the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status as taught by Niemi for the purpose of refraining the UE from accessing the 5GCN over a restricted access type as suggested by Niemi [0062].
As to claim 2, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 1, Tiwari isn’t explicit but suggests wherein the first access type is 3GPP access type, and the second access type is non-3GPP access type. See [0596] “… regardless of the access type” thus it is considered that “first” and “second” labels are arbitrary. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method wherein the first access type is 3GPP access type, and the second access type is non-3GPP access type as there are limited choices and it would be obvious to try.
As to claim 3, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 1, Tiwari isn’t explicit but suggests wherein the first access type is non-3GPP access type, and the second access type is 3GPP access type. See [0596] “… regardless of the access type” thus it is considered that “first” and “second” labels are arbitrary. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method wherein the first access type is non-3GPP access type, and the second access type is 3GPP access type as there are limited choices and it would be obvious to try.
As to claim 4, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 1, Tiwari discloses wherein the 5GS registration result value is set to 3GPP access and non-3GPP access indicating that the UE is registered to both the first network and the second network. See [0003], “UE is registered … over both 3GPP access and non-3GPP access so would receive such indication”.
As to claim 5, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 1, Tiwari discloses wherein the first network and the second network are two different public land mobile networks (PLMNs), see [0002] “When a UE is registered to two different PLMNs over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access…”.
As to claim 6, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 1, Tiwari discloses wherein the first network and the second network are the same public land mobile network (PLMN), see [0002] “When a UE is registered to a PLMN over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access…”.
As to claim 7, Tiwari discloses A method, comprising:
transmitting a REGISTRATION REQUEST (1. - Fig. 14) message by a User Equipment (UE) to a second network over a second access type,
wherein the UE is not registered to a first network via a first access type (registration update); see [0434];[0438]
receiving a REGISTRATION ACCEPT (21. - Fig. 14) message over the second access type from the second network, wherein the message carries a 5GS registration result information element (IE); see [0594]
deriving a 5GS registration result value that indicates whether the UE is registered to the first network and the second network (see [0596]); and
Tiwari fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art, Watfa discloses ignoring the 5GS registration result value (see [0225]-[0227], “UE may ignore…”) and considering the UE is not registered to the first network over the first access type (depending on priority). Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Tiwari to include the steps of ignoring and considering as taught by Watfa for the purpose of prioritizing access.
Tiwari is silent on the deriving step based on the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status. In an analogous art, Niemi discloses [0061] the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status and [0062] deriving based thereon. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method such that the deriving step was based on the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status as taught by Niemi for the purpose of refraining the UE from accessing the 5GCN over a restricted access type as suggested by Niemi [0062].
As to claim 8, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 7, Tiwari isn’t explicit but suggests wherein the first access type is 3GPP access type, and the second access type is non-3GPP access type. See [0596] “… regardless of the access type” thus it is considered that “first” and “second” labels are arbitrary. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method wherein the first access type is 3GPP access type, and the second access type is non-3GPP access type as there are limited choices and it would be obvious to try.
As to claim 9, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 7, Tiwari isn’t explicit but suggests wherein the first access type is non-3GPP access type, and the second access type is 3GPP access type. See [0596] “… regardless of the access type” thus it is considered that “first” and “second” labels are arbitrary. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the method wherein the first access type is non-3GPP access type, and the second access type is 3GPP access type as there are limited choices and it would be obvious to try.
As to claim 10, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 7, it is further considered that the combination would result wherein the 5GS registration result value is set to the second access indicating that the UE is registered to the second network only, based on priorities.
As to claim 11, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The method of Claim 7, Tiwari discloses wherein the first network and the second network are two different public land mobile networks (PLMNs), see
[0002] “When a UE is registered to two different PLMNs over 3GPP access and non-3GPP access…”.
As to claim 12, Tiwari discloses A User Equipment (3), comprising:
a transmitter (31) that transmitting a REGISTRATION REQUEST (1. – Fig. 14) message to a second network over a second access type, wherein the UE has a first registration status with a first network over a first access type; see [0434];[0438]
a receiver (31) that receives a REGISTRATION ACCEPT (21. - Fig. 14) message over the second access type from the second network, wherein the message carries a 5GS registration result information element (IE); and see [0594]
a control circuit (33) that derives a 5GS registration result value that indicates a second registration status with the first network over the first access type, (see [0596])
Tiwari fails to explicitly recite yet in an analogous art, Watfa discloses wherein the UE ignores the 5GS registration result value (see [0225]-[0227], “UE may ignore…”) and considers the UE is registered or not registered to the first network over the first access type based on the first registration status (depending on priority). Before the effective filing date it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control circuit of Tiwari to ignore and consider as taught by Watfa for the purpose of prioritizing access.
Tiwari is silent on the deriving step based on the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status. In an analogous art, Niemi discloses [0061] the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status and [0062] deriving based thereon. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method such that the deriving step was based on the received 5GS reqistration result IE indicatinq an access-type registration status as taught by Niemi for the purpose of refraining the UE from accessing the 5GCN over a restricted access type as suggested by Niemi [0062].
As to claims 13-16, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses The UE of Claim 12, further see corresponding claims 2-3 & 5-6.
As to claims 17-18, the combination of Tiwari, Watfa, and Niemi discloses the UE of Claim 12, further see corresponding claims 7 & 1 wherein the first registration status indicates the UE is / isn’t registered to the first network and the second registration status indicates the UE is not registered to the first network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suh (2024/0121744) provides for a registration accept message with UE access allowable RAT type information element to notify the UE of information about a RAT type allowed for the UE. [0076].
Venkataraman et al. (2020/0008167) provide for a type 1 IE including bits to identify an access type in a de-registration accept message. [0125].
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 LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights