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 Amendment
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Response dated 12/03/2025. Claims 22, 29, 31 and 38 were amended. Claims 21-40 remains pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Argument one – The applicant argues that
“Independent WTRU claim 21 requires that the WTRU is caused to receive configuration information comprising an indication of one or more networks that may be able to serve the WTRU in the event of a disaster. Claim 21 also requires that the configuration information comprises an indication of a second wait time associated with sending a second registration request to the first network, the sending of the second registration request being based on determining that a disaster condition is over.”
Examiner replies that Chun1 teaches receiving configuration by the WTRU, while Chaponniere teaches wait time associated with sending a second registration. Reply to the arguments below gives more detail about these teachings.
Argument two – The applicant argues that
“”” The Examiner cites Chun1 " [0370], [0371], and [0417] as teaching "configuration information" (Office Action, p. 3-4). According to Chun1, however, a UE may read system information from another PLMN to determine whether disaster roaming is permitted. This entails a reactive reading by the UE of SIBs and candidate PLMNs, not configuration information received at the UE governing timed re-registration.”””
The examiner replies that the UE reading the System Information means it is receiving the configuration. Configuration information received as system information is as valid as any other type of configuration information received by the UE. These paragraphs discloses that the information the UE receive is what the UE is used in making conclusion that disaster roaming is possible to the PLMN and it uses this information in accessing the PLMN.
Argument three – The applicant argues that
“””With respect to the "configuration information compris[ing] an indication of [the] second wait time," the Examiner concedes that "Chun1 in view of Chun2 does not expressly teach" and relies on chaponnier [0070] (Office Action, p. 6). Chaponnier, however, describes a randomized wait time applied across disaster inbound roamers at the network level to reduce overload, not a configuration parameter received by the UE and used for re-registration of the UE back with the first network (e.g., home PLMN). Claim 21 specifically requires the configuration information itself to comprise an indication of the second wait time. Neither Chun1 in view of Chun2 nor Chaponnier teaches or suggests such UE-side configuration.”””
The examiner replies that Chaponniere teaches received wait time with a value of randomized that is based on UE’s IMSI in paragraph 0070 "the disaster inbound roamers (e.g., UEs 706) may wait for a randomized amount of time before attempting to register on the recovered PLMN. To further spread the return of the UEs in time, the wait time may be based on a hash of the UE's international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI)."
The disaster roamer or the UE will have a way of knowing how long to wait. This is the randomized amount of time that may be based on the hash of the UE’s IMSI. This information is the wait time configuration information. Note that the randomized amount of time for PLMN in paragraph 0068 is different from randomized amount of time for the UE in paragraph 0070.
Argument four – The applicant argues that
“”” Furthermore, the law is clear that "[o]bviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination." (Unigene Labs. V. Apotex, 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The Examiner's piecemeal reliance on Chun1 for "configuration" and Chaponnier for "wait time" impermissibly reconstructs the claim with hindsight.
Claim 21 also requires that the WTRU (i) send to the second network a first registration request comprising an indication that the first registration request pertains to disaster roaming and then (ii) upon determining the disaster condition is over, send a second registration request to the first network.
The Examiner points to Chun1 ¶ [0445] as ostensibly showing the first registration request with disaster roaming indication (Office Action, p. 5), and to Chun2 ¶ ¶ [0283], [0304] as ostensibly showing returning to the home PLMN after the disaster condition is over (Office Action, p. 6). However, Chun2's disclosure of PLMN reselection after disaster termination is not tied to a prior disaster roaming registration request that explicitly carried a disaster indication. By contrast, claim 21 calls for a two-step registration sequence with explicit signaling in the first step. The combination of Chun1 and Chun2 does not teach or suggest this integration.
As the Federal Circuit has explained, "a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each element was, independently, known in the prior art" (KSR Int / V. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). The Examiner's reasoning does just that, without showing how or why one of ordinary skill would combine Chunl's "disaster registration" with Chun2's "end-of-disaster reselection" into the specific two-step process claimed.”””
The examiner replies that Chun1 discloses (i). Chun2 discloses re-registration to PLMN A which is the initial or prior PLMN. Chun2 is showing that reselection to previous PLMN after disaster exists in previous arts. Chun1 and Chun2 can easily be integrated because Chun1 discloses action taking at the beginning of disaster while Chun2 discloses action taking at the end of disaster. Chun1 discloses action taking during disturbance while Chun2 discloses action taking towards restoration at the end of disturbance.
Argument five – The applicant argues that
“”” Claim 21 requires the WTRU to determine, based on broadcast information: that a
disaster condition applies in the first network, and that the second network is able to provide
service to disaster roamers.
The Examiner relies on Chun1 ¶ [0372] for teaching that "a base station connected to a
surrounding PLMN may send each UE whether or not the base station has allowed the national
roaming or disaster roaming attempt of UEs subscribed to other competitor PLMN using [an]
SIB message." (Office Action, p. 4). Chun1, however, does not disclose the dual determination
required by claim 21, specifically, that the first network is in a disaster condition and that the
second network is accepting disaster roamers. Chun2 discusses messages about the end of a
disaster, but again this is a different context (post-disaster return). The cited art simply does
not teach the requirements of claim 21.”””
The examiner replies that the disaster condition was disclosed by Chun 1. The disaster roaming acceptance was shown by Chun2. That there was an end of a disaster means there was a disaster. Chun2 also discloses action taking at the end of the disaster to normalize.
Argument six – The applicant argues that
“””The Examiner asserts that "it would have been obvious" to combine Chun1's "[m]ethod for allowing registration to [a] network in [a] wireless communication system" with Chun2's end-of-disaster determination "to achieve fast normalization after disaster" (Office Action, p.6). This rationale is conclusory and not supported by articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings, as required under In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The cited references address distinct problems--(1) enabling disaster roaming (Chun1), (2) signaling disaster termination (Chun2), and (3) congestion avoidance (Chaponnier)--but do not suggest integration into a unified UE-side procedure with configuration information governing timed re-registration as recited in claim 21.”””
The examiner replies that Chaponniere discloses reregistration that is timed. The detail of the timing is "the disaster inbound roamers (e.g., UEs 706) may wait for a randomized amount of time before attempting to register on the recovered PLMN. To further spread the return of the UEs in time, the wait time may be based on a hash of the UE's international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI)." The reasoning flow is that there was disturbance caused by the disaster as disclosed in Chun1 teaching, there was restoration at the end of the disturbance as disclosed in Chun2 teaching, the restoration was done in orderly manner as disclosed in Chaponniere teaching of randomized wait time for reregistration. Roaming during disaster is abnormal state that needs to be normalized after the disaster. This is the reason for the motivation to achieve fast normalization after disaster.
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.
In 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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 21 – 26, 30 – 35 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0205868), Chun1 hereinafter, in view of Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0272651), Chun2 hereinafter, and further in view of Chaponniere et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0141758), Chaponniere hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 21 and 30, Chun1 teaches a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising a processor, a memory, communication circuitry, and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory which, when executed by the processor, cause the WTRU to: (see fig. 16 and paragraphs 0460 to 0463 – [0463]The RF module 1635 is connected to the processor 1610 and transmits and/or receives an RF signal. The processor 1610 forwards instructional information to the RF module 1635 in order to initiate communication, for example, transmit a radio signal configuring voice communication data. …)
receive configuration information comprising an indication of one or more networks that may be able to serve the WTRU in the event of a disaster in at least a first network associated with the WTRU; (paragraphs 0370, 0371 and 0417 - In particular, if UEs, in which a disaster occurs in a PLMN to which they subscribe, access other surrounding PLMNs, each base station may indicate, to the UE, whether or not other surrounding PLMNs each support national roaming, or whether or not the respective PLMNs permit the access attempt of the UE.[0371] Hence, if the UE attempts to access a different PLMN (hereinafter, referred to as communication network B for convenience of explanation) from a subscribed PLMN (hereinafter, referred to as communication network A for convenience of explanation) of the UE, the UE that attempts to access other surrounding PLMN due to a disaster occurring in the PLMN, to which the UE subscribes, may first read system information in the communication network B and determine whether or not national roaming or disaster roaming is allowed in the communication network B. If the UE receives, from the base station, that national roaming or disaster roaming has been allowed in the communication network B, or if the UE is informed that communication of the purpose similar to this has been allowed in the communication network B, the UE may attempt to access the communication network B and attempt the camping.[0417] That is, the example shows that the UE selects an access category specifically designated for national roaming or disaster roaming in the access categories, and then checks whether there is access barring using the selected access category. In other words, when any UE cannot perform the access due to a problem occurring in a HPLMN of the UE, but when the UE can use other network of the same home country, and when the UE shall access a network, the UE selects the access category and performs the access.)
receive broadcast information from a second network; (paragraph 0372 - For example, a base station connected to a surrounding PLMN may send each UE whether or not the base station has allowed the national roaming or disaster roaming attempt of UEs subscribed to other competitor PLMN using the following SIB message. That is, the UE that is indicated to select other surrounding PLMN other than a currently subscribed PLMN may determine whether the access attempt (or disaster roaming attempt) to other PLMN is allowed from other base station connected to other PLMN using the following SIB message.). SIB is system information block.
determine, based on the broadcast information, that a disaster condition applies in the first network; (paragraph 0372 - For example, a base station connected to a surrounding PLMN may send each UE whether or not the base station has allowed the national roaming or disaster roaming attempt of UEs subscribed to other competitor PLMN using the following SIB message. That is, the UE that is indicated to select other surrounding PLMN other than a currently subscribed PLMN may determine whether the access attempt (or disaster roaming attempt) to other PLMN is allowed from other base station connected to other PLMN using the following SIB message.). SIB is system information block.
determine, based on the broadcast information received from a second network, that the second network is able to provide service to the WTRU, wherein the broadcast information comprises an indication that the second network is able to provide service to disaster roamers(paragraph 00371 - ... the UE that attempts to access other surrounding PLMN due to a disaster occurring in the PLMN, to which the UE subscribes, may first read system information in the communication network B and determine whether or not national roaming or disaster roaming is allowed in the communication network B. If the UE receives, from the base station, that national roaming or disaster roaming has been allowed in the communication network B, ... )
send, to the second network, a first registration request comprising an indication that the first registration request pertains to disaster roaming; (paragraph 0445 - Next, the UE may transmit, to a second PLMN, a registration request message including information related to whether a disaster roaming service is applied to the UE, in S1305.)
Yet, Chun1 does not expressly teach determine that the disaster condition is over; and based on determining the disaster condition is over, send a second registration request to the first network
However, in the analogous art, Chun2 explicitly discloses determine that the disaster condition is over; and (paragraph 0283 - Then, the gNB/eNB may inform the UE that the UE can access PLMN A through the SIB. That is, the gNB/eNB of PLMN B may transmit to the terminal a connection change possible message indicating that the connection can be changed from PLMN B to which the terminal is currently connected to PLMN A (3. Disaster Roaming ended). Such a message may be transmitted through a paging message or the like as well as a method through the SIB. Messages indicating the end of a disaster situation can be conveyed in several ways.).
based on determining the disaster condition is over, send a second registration request to the first network (paragraph 0304 - The UE may perform a PLMN reselection procedure. The UE may start searching sequentially from a PLMN having a higher priority in the PLMN list stored by the UE, and when a corresponding PLMN is found, select it and perform a registration procedure to be described later. In the embodiment of the present specification, PLMN A may be selected because the PLMN A to which the terminal has subscribed has a high priority and the connection will be possible after the disaster situation is over.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Chun2's determination of end of disaster condition to achieve fast normalization after disaster. (paragraph 0321 Chun2).
Yet, Chun1 in view of Chun2 does not expressly teach wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of a second wait time associated with sending the second registration request to the first network.
However, in the analogous art, Chaponniere explicitly discloses wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of a second wait time associated with sending the second registration request to the first network. (paragraph 0070 - In some aspects, in an attempt to prevent overloading of the recovered PLMN, upon being notified that the disaster condition no longer applies, the disaster inbound roamers (e.g., UEs 706) may wait for a randomized amount of time before attempting to register on the recovered PLMN. To further spread the return of the UEs in time, the wait time may be based on a hash of the UE's international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Chaponniere's indication of wait time to minimize signaling overload during and after disaster condition (paragraph 0070 Chaponniere).
Regarding Claim 22 and 31, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Chun2 further teaches wherein causing the WTRU to determine the disaster condition is over further comprises at least one of: receiving, in response to sending a message to the second network, a non-access stratum (NAS) response message from the second network indicating the disaster condition is over (Alternative)
or ; receiving a NAS message from the second network indicating the disaster condition is over or (Alternative)
detecting that broadcast information associated with the second network does not include an indication that the second network is able to provide service to disaster roamers (paragraph 0283] Then, the gNB/eNB may inform the UE that the UE can access PLMN A through the SIB. That is, the gNB/eNB of PLMN B may transmit to the terminal a connection change possible message indicating that the connection can be changed from PLMN B to which the terminal is currently connected to PLMN A (3. Disaster Roaming ended). Such a message may be transmitted through a paging message or the like as well as a method through the SIB. Messages indicating the end of a disaster situation can be conveyed in several ways.). Indicating end of disaster is the same as not indicating that disaster is ongoing. SIB is system information block.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Chun2's determination of end of disaster condition to achieve fast normalization after disaster. (paragraph 0321 Chun2).
Regarding Claim 23 and 32, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claims 21 and 30.
Chaponniere further teaches wherein the configuration information comprises an indication of a first wait time associated with sending the first registration request to the second network (paragraph 0070] In some aspects, in an attempt to prevent overloading of the recovered PLMN, upon being notified that the disaster condition no longer applies, the disaster inbound roamers (e.g., UEs 706) may wait for a randomized amount of time before attempting to register on the recovered PLMN. To further spread the return of the UEs in time, the wait time may be based on a hash of the UE's international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Chaponniere's indication of wait time to minimize signaling overload during and after disaster condition (paragraph 0070 Chaponniere).
Regarding Claim 24 and 33, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Chun2 further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the WTRU to receive the configuration information in a non-access stratum (NAS) message. (paragraphs 0075 and 0076 - The NAS entity for MM creates a NAS-MM message that derives how and where to forward the SM signaling message with a security header indicating the NAS transmission of the SM signaling, additional information about the receiving NAS-MM. [0076] Upon reception of SM signaling, the NAS entity for SM performs an integrity check of the NAS-MM message, and interprets additional information to derive a method and a place to derive the SM signaling message.). SM is session management; MM is Mobility management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Chun2's determination of end of disaster condition to achieve fast normalization after disaster (paragraph 0321 Chun2).
Regarding Claim 25 and 34, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Chun1 further teaches wherein the configuration information comprises a prioritized list of public land mobile networks (PLMNs) (paragraph 0357 - In addition, the CandidatePLMN information may include a weighting factor determined based on a communication situation of each PLMN among candidate PLMNs. For example, if any UE subscribing to MNO A receives, from a base station of the MNO A, an indication that the UE shall move to other PLMN, and receives an indication for MNO B and MNO C through the candidate PLMN, the UE may receive an indication that the UE shall select the MNO B and the MNO C in a ratio of 7:3. The UE may set the probability of selecting the MNO B to 7 and set the probability of selecting the MNO C to 3 using a random number or an internal algorithm, select one of the MNO B and the MNO C according to the probability value, preferentially select the selected PLMN, and attempt registration to the PLMN.). Prioritization done by attaching weighting factor to candidate PLMN and selecting preferentially.
Regarding Claim 26 and 35, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Chun1 further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the WTRU to store the configuration information in a subscriber identity module (SIM) (paragraph 0396 and 0397 - ... a UE shall get services on a new PLMN via national roaming or disaster roaming, ... Accordingly, the above operations are performed on only a UE, for which national roaming or disaster roaming is allowed, based on information configured in, for example, a SIM or a memory of the UE, and are not performed on a UE if which national roaming or disaster roaming is not allowed based on configuration information, etc.)
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0205868), Chun1 hereinafter, in view of Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0272651), Chun2 hereinafter, and further in view of Chaponniere et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0141758), Chaponniere hereinafter and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0191868), Zhou hereinafter
Regarding Claim 27 and 36, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Yet, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere does not expressly teach wherein a mobile terminated (MT) part of the WTRU uses an attention (AT) command to send, to a terminal equipment (TE) part of the WTRU, a list of networks that may serve the WTRU in the event of a disaster.
However, in the analogous art, Zhou explicitly discloses a mobile terminated (MT) part of the WTRU uses an attention (AT) command to send, to a terminal equipment (TE) part of the WTRU, a list of networks that may serve the WTRU in the event of a disaster (paragraph 0105 - Exemplarily, the cloud modem obtains the current network information by scanning according to the AT (Attention) command, obtains a PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network) list, extracts a base station identifier LAC and a network identifier MNC, and signal strength. The cloud modem sends the MNC and the signal strength corresponding to the MNC to the cloud server according to the access request sent to the cloud server.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Zhou's attention command to make information available for decision taking (paragraph 0105 Zhou).
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0205868), Chun1 hereinafter, in view of Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0272651), Chun2 hereinafter, and further in view of Chaponniere et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0141758), Chaponniere hereinafter and further in view of Basu et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0053139), Basu hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 28 and 37, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Yet, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere does not expressly teach wherein the instructions further cause the WTRU to provide a graphical user interface displaying a list of networks that may serve the WTRU in the event of a disaster.
However, in the analogous art, Basu explicitly discloses wherein the instructions further cause the WTRU to provide a graphical user interface displaying a list of networks that may serve the WTRU in the event of a disaster (paragraph 0027 - … For example, the UI can display a software function button to check if the user is willing to use RLOS service and it can subsequently switch to manual mode of PLMN selection of displayed PLMNs that support RLOS or display all available PLMNs and mark those supporting RLOS for selection. This can be a list of all PLMNs broadcasted in, for example, System Information Block (SIB) Type1 including PLMNs belonging to a plurality of new/separate/independent cellIdentity(s) as defined in SystemInformationBlockType1 of 3GPP TS 36.331 supporting RLOS. ... [0029] ... The UI 400 can also provide a second option button 420 or other selection input for the user to select to only allow the MS to make emergency calls. ... ). RLOS is Restricted Local Operator Services.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Basu's display of PLMNs that supports disaster condition to get user input into reselection decision (paragraph 0029 Basu).
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0205868), Chun1 hereinafter, in view of Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0272651), Chun2 hereinafter, and further in view of Chaponniere et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0141758), Chaponniere hereinafter and further in view of Tamura et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0264294), Tamura hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 29 and 38, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Yet, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere does not expressly teach wherein the first registration request is a non- access stratum (NAS) message carried in a radio resource control (RRC) message.
However, in the analogous art, Tamura explicitly discloses wherein the first registration request is a non- access stratum (NAS) message in a radio resource control (RRC) message (paragraph 0088 - Step (3): the access network transmits or transparently forwards the registration request message to the selected AMF 30 (S0503). In this case, the registration request may include the first network slice information (requested NSSAI) and the first support information. Note that a message related to the registration procedure and transmitted and received on the N1 interface between the UE 10 and the AMF 30 is a message processed at a non-access-stratum (NAS) layer. The NAS layer is a higher-level layer of an RRC layer between the UE 10 and the NG-(R)AN 20.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Tamura's non- access stratum message to achieve registration in disaster supporting network (paragraph 0088 Tamura).
Regarding Claim 39, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 21 and 30.
Chun2 further teaches further comprising determining, by the WTRU, that the disaster condition is over based on a broadcast message that is received from the second network (paragraph 0283 - Then, the gNB/eNB may inform the UE that the UE can access PLMN A through the SIB. That is, the gNB/eNB of PLMN B may transmit to the terminal a connection change possible message indicating that the connection can be changed from PLMN B to which the terminal is currently connected to PLMN A (3. Disaster Roaming ended). Such a message may be transmitted through a paging message or the like as well as a method through the SIB. Messages indicating the end of a disaster situation can be conveyed in several ways.). SIB is system information block.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Chaponniere's indication of wait time to minimize signaling overload during and after disaster condition (paragraph 0070 Chaponniere).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2024/0205868), Chun1 hereinafter, in view of Chun (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0272651), Chun2 hereinafter, and further in view of Chaponniere et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0141758), Chaponniere hereinafter and further in view of Qiao et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0030495), Qiao hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 40, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere teaches claim 30.
Yet, Chun1 in view of Chun2 and further in view of Chaponniere does not expressly teach wherein the received broadcast information comprises an identifier of the second network.
However, in the analogous art, Qiao explicitly discloses the received broadcast information comprises an identifier of the second network. (paragraph 0282 - For example, the AMF 1 may send to the (R)AN 1 a configuration message comprising at least one of: the network fail/disaster indication, the failed/disaster network location, the identifier of (R)AN of the second PLMN/disaster PLMN, the identifier of the second PLMN/disaster PLMN, the allowed service type indicating … In an example, based on the information elements of the configuration message, the (R)AN 1 may determine available resource for the wireless devices in the coverage, wherein the wireless devices may be the wireless devices of the first PLMN and/or the wireless devices of the second PLMN.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Chun1’s Method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system, and device therefor to include Qiao's identifier of disaster supporting network to achieve reselection that will provide service continuity during disaster condition (paragraph 0071 Qiao).
Conclusion
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 LAWRENCE AYODELE OLUBODUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5462. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00am - 5pm.
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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at 5712705443. 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.
/A.L.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472