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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4, 7, 10-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the 3GPP standards document (“D1 reference” in written opinion) or U.S. Pub. 2011/0021195 to Cormier in view of U.S. Pub. 2009/0082014 to Kryszkiewicz (“D2 reference” in the written opinion) and U.S. Pub. 2022/0256445 to Sedin.
Regarding claim 1 (as described on pages 5-6 of the written opinion), the 3GPP document in section 4.4.3 teaches “a cellular communication device comprising a processing system, a data storage and a communication circuitry, the processing system, configured for performing a Public Land Mobile Network, PLMN, selection procedure to attempt registration with a PLMN, the selection procedure involving accessing a PLMN selector list, the PLMN selector list comprising at least one pair of a PLMN entry and at least one Radio Access Technology, RAT, entry, each RAT entry indicating one RAT,” as these pages/section 4.4.3 teach that PLMN list within the device also includes the types of RATs that each PLMN support.
Also regarding the first feature of claim 1, Cormier teaches “a cellular communication device configured for performing a Public Land Mobile Network, PLMN, selection procedure to attempt registration with a PLMN, the selection procedure involving accessing a PLMN selector list, the PLMN selector list comprising at least one pair of a PLMN entry and at least one Radio Access Technology, RAT, entry, each RAT entry indicating one RAT”, see for example, Fig. 1B which shows the wireless device 10 and its internal structures, which include a multi-RAT radio 11, processor 12, and preferred PLMN, RAT network list 15 (stored in memory 14). As described in sections [0095] to [0105] and [0119] to [0137] and as shown in the numerous tables, “Tables 1-12”, Cormier teach that the device stores PLMNs associated with RATs, as recited.
Regarding the last feature of claim 1 which recites:
“wherein the PLMN entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair is associated with a value set to indicate that two or more PLMNs may be selected, wherein the cellular communication device is configured to sequentially select the two or more PLMNs when processing the (PLMN; RAT) pair in the PLMN selector list to attempt registration with the selected PLMN”, as described in the written opinion “D1” (and also Cormier) do not explicitly teach “a value set to indicate two PLMNs may be selected”, so document D2 to Kryszkiewicz is added.
As also set forth in the written opinion, “D2” to Kryszkiewicz teaches that a stored list of PLMNs may include a wildcard value. As shown in Figure 2 and as described in sections [0037] to [0053] Kryszkiewicz teaches that the wildcard indicates that any number of networks may be selected based on the type of wildcard and where it is stored within the list (as part of either in the MCC or MNC used to identify the PLMN). For example, as described in sections [0045] and [0046] a “?” wildcard may be used as “2?” matching 21 or 22, or a multiple wildcard “*” used as 2* may indicate 21 or 212 or 2123, where Fig. 2 shows the use of the wildcard in either the MCC or the MNC code.
Therefore, as both of the 3GPP document “D1” and Cormier teach storing lists of PLMNs and associated RATs, and as “D2” to Kryszkiewicz teaches that a stored list of PLMNs may include a wildcard value (which is the recited “value set to indicate two PLMNs may be selected”), it would have been obvious to modify either primary reference with this feature, for the reasons found in these references, which are that when roaming different PLMNs and types of RATs may be preferable and/or take priority over other types of PLMNs/RATs, as is conventional.
Regarding the feature of claim 1 reciting:
“and at least one further (PLMN: RAT) pair, wherein a further PLMN entry of the further (PLMN, RAT) pair comprises a value set to indicate one specific PLMN and wherein the cellular communication device and the PLMN selector list are configured such that the cellular communication device processes the (PLMN, RAT) pair before the further (PLMN RAT) pair”, this feature would be taught by the applied references above as prioritizing and/or selecting a home network PLMN (HPLMN) first and then subsequently selecting another (“further”) PLMN, results in processing “the PLMN/RAT pair before the further PLMN/RAT pair” as now recited. See for example, section 4.4.3.1.1 on page 31 of the 3GPP document “D1”, which teaches a list of 5 priorities of PLMNs which are to be selected in order, starting with the home network HPLMN and see sections [0050] to [0052], [0071] to [0073] and [0085] to [0087] of Cormier, which teach selecting the home network and/or preferred network first.
Regarding the amendment to claim 1 now reciting:
“wherein at least one of the following applies: no RAT entry of the (PLMN RAT) pair specifies non-terrestrial access, whereas at least one RAT entry of the further (PLMN: RAT) pair specifies non-terrestrial access; at least one RAT entry of the (PLMN RAT) pair specifies non-terrestrial RAT access,” as the refences do not specifically mention satellite or NTN access, Sedin is added.
In an analogous art, Sedin teaches that a stored list of PLMNs may include a satellite or non-terrestrial network (NTN) access. See for example, Figs. 1, 5, 12 and 13 and as described in sections [0035] to [0038] and [0060] to [0063] Sedin teaches that satellite or NTN PLMNs may be selected based on criteria such as quality of connection, strength of signal, etc. See also sections [0085] to [0091], which teach receiving a list of PLMNs which includes specifically identifying NTN networks (as now recited) and using these networks in a prioritized manner.
Therefore, as all of the 3GPP document “D1”, Cormier and Sedin teach storing lists of PLMNs and associated RATs, and as Sedin explicitly teaches that a stored list of PLMNs includes satellite (NTN) types of networks/access (as recited), it would have been obvious to modify either primary reference with this feature, as for the reasons found in Sedin, which is that when roaming, satellite access has become more common and may provide coverage when other PLMNs are not accessible, as is conventional.
Regarding the amendment:
“to refrain from selecting the one or more PLMNs appearing on the blacklist”, it is noted that this feature is performed by D1 or Cormier, which teach PLMN blacklists, and the definition of blacklists, is to not select a blacklisted network, as recited.
Regarding the amendment:
“to access the blacklist comprising one or more PLMNs that should not be selected when the set value in the PLMN selector list for the (PLMN; RAT) pair indicates that two or more PLMNs can be selected” it is noted that Applicant appears to argue this feature as if the blacklist is conditionally accessed, i.e. it is written as “if the set value in the PLMN list indicates…then access the blacklist” (which appears to be of different scope than currently written).
For example, claim language such as “the phone is configured to make a call when the Virginia/Maryland state line is crossed” may be interpreted to mean that “the phone is configured to make a call”, and “the phone is capable of making a call when a specific condition is happening”. This means that any prior art phone configured to make a call and the phone is also capable of being transported across the Virginia Maryland state line (such that the “when condition” is met) may be used to reject this limitation. Language such as “in response to detecting that the Virginia/Maryland state line is being crossed, the phone is configured to automatically make a call”, now requires that the condition is actively detected and must first be detected and then in response to the condition being met, an action is performed. Therefore, as currently written, this disputed feature may be rejected in view of the prior art as it is not interpreted as Applicant argues. Therefore, as D1/Cormier teach blacklists and as Kryszkiewicz teaches PLMN selector lists which include two entries, the prior art may be used to meet the limitation as now recited, as the claim does not require “in response to determining that the set value in the PLMN selector list for the (PLMN; RAT) pair indicates that two or more PLMNs can be selected, accessing a blacklist”.
Regarding claims 10 and 14, which include similar features and amendments as in claim 1 except in other forms (such as a “security module” or CRM), see the rejection of claim 1, where the PLMN lists in either primary reference as modified by the wildcard of Cormier and NTN access of Sedin, meet the language in claims 10 and 14.
Regarding claim 2, which recites “wherein the PLMN entry of the pair comprises a Mobile Country Code, MCC, and a Mobile Network Code, MNC, wherein the value of at least the MNC is associated with a value set to indicate any MNC and the cellular communication device is configured to sequentially select a PLMN with any MNC when processing the (PLMN; RAT) pair in the PLMN selector list”, as described above, see Fig. 2 of Kryszkiewicz and sections [0045] and [0046] where a “?” wildcard may be used within the MNC, as recited.
Regarding claim 4, which recites “wherein the cellular communication device is configured to attempt registration with the PLMN using the RAT indicated in the at least one RAT entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair, provided that the RAT is supported by the cellular communication device”, see for example, section 4.4.3 of D1 and step 3-4 in Fig. 3 of Cormier (section [0161]), which attempt registration as recited.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, which now recite “wherein at least one of the following applies:
at least one RAT entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair is different from any RAT entry of the further (PLMN; RAT) pair;
at least one RAT entry of the further (PLMN; RAT) pair is different from any RAT entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair”, as different RATs associated with one PLMN/RAT pair) shown in the Tables of Cormier see Tables 2 and 7-8) are different than a RAT associated with another entry in the PLMN list (which is the recited “further PLMN, RAT pair”), the teachings of Cormier may be interpreted to show and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claim 11, which recites “wherein the standardized value comprises at least a value for a Mobile Network Code, MNC, wherein the standardized value indicates any MNC”, as described above, see Fig. 2 of Kryszkiewicz and sections [0045] and [0046] where a “?” wildcard may be used within the MNC, as recited.
Regarding claim 15, which recites “the non-transitory computer readable storage medium according to claim 14, for which at least one of the following applies:
the standardized value comprises at least a value for a Mobile Network Code, MNC, wherein the standardized value indicates any MNC;
at least one RAT entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair is different from any RAT entry of the further (PLMN; RAT) pair;
at least one RAT entry of the further (PLMN; RAT) pair is different from any RAT entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair”, as described above, see Fig. 2 of Kryszkiewicz and sections [0045] and [0046] where a “?” wildcard may be used within the MNC, as recited.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2021/0204206 to Kim.
Regarding claim 3, which recites “wherein the cellular communication device is configured: to receive a signal, for example a system information broadcast, SIB, from a PLMN indicating a PLMN value of the PLMN; and to select the PLMN corresponding to the PLMN value in the signal when processing the (PLMN; RAT) pair in the PLMN selector list based on the PLMN entry of the (PLMN; RAT) pair being associated with the value set to indicate that two or more PLMNs may be selected”, as the references do not explicitly teach receiving the PLMN list from an SIB, Kim is added.
In an analogous art Kim teaches a wireless system, which provides a list of PLMNs to the user equipment (UEs). As shown in Figure 7 and as described in sections [0131] to [0132], Kim teaches that the UE receives a System Information Block (SIB) from a home network or HPLMN, which includes available PLMNs and RATs.
Therefore, as both of the 3GPP document “D1” and Cormier teach storing lists of PLMNs and associated RATs, and as Kim teaches that a list of PLMNs and RATs may be received via an SIB, it would have been obvious to modify either primary reference with this feature, as networks may provide updated lists for the cellular devices, as network conditions and/or priorities may change and it is beneficial to notify the user equipment of these updates, as is conventional.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “wherein the cellular communication device is configured: to receive signals, for example system information broadcasts, SIB, from two or more PLMNs, each signal comprising a PLMN value associated with the respective PLMN; and to select a PLMN from the two or more PLMNs when processing the (PLMN; RAT) pair to be selected first based on a condition, as described above, Kim teaches the first step of receiving the PLMN list via a SIB (which may come from more than one network as recited), and the second step of “selecting a PLMN from the two or more PLMNs” based on a condition is shown in the references by selecting based any of the conditions such as “priority” or signal strength (see D1 and sections [0055] and [0082] of Cormier and sections [0117] and [0139] of Kim).
Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein the cellular communication device is configured to receive at least one of the PLMN selector list and a blacklist comprising one or more PLMNs that should not be selected over-the-air from a home PLMN”, as the primary references teach the PLMN list and the backlist and as Kim teaches receiving the PLMN list via the SIB, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claim 16 which recites “wherein the condition comprises a signal strength condition, wherein a PLMN is selected first based on the signal strength of the received signal, irrespective of the PLMN value of the PLMN”, see section [0023] of Sedin which teaches using signal strength, see section [0117] and [0139] of Kim, and see sections [0055], [0082] and [0133] of Cormier. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claim 18 which recites “wherein the condition comprises an available services condition, wherein a PLMN is selected first based on the available service from the PLMN”, see for example, dependent claim 10 of Kryszkieicz and see sections [0112] to [0113], [0133] and [0160] to [0164] of Kim, which teach selecting a network based on the types of services offered. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claim 19 which recites “wherein the condition comprises a random condition, wherein a random PLMN is selected first from the two or more PLMNs”, see for example, sections [0023] to [0030] of Sedin, which teaches that the order of PLMN selection is random, and see sections [0123], [0148] and [0165] of Kim, which also teach that the selected PLMNs are in random order. Therefore, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2014/0120915 to Wu.
Regarding claim 17 which recites “wherein the condition comprises a time condition, wherein a first PLMN of the two or more PLMNs is selected first, for example, a PLMN for which a first PLMN value was received successfully before a second PLMN value associated with a second PLMN of the two or more PLMNs, irrespective of the first PLMN value in the signal of the first PLMN and the second value in the signal of the second PLMN”, Wu is added.
In an analogous art Wu teaches a wireless system, which provides a list of PLMNs to the user equipment (UEs). As described in sections [0027] to [0029], Wu teaches that a first and second RAT/PLMNs have first/second timer values associated with each network.
Therefore, as all of the 3GPP document “D1” and Cormier teach storing lists of PLMNs and associated RATs, and as Wu teaches that each PLMN/RAT has an associated timer value, it would have been obvious to modify either primary reference with this feature, as Wu teaches the conventionality that network prioritization may change while attempting to register with one of the PLMN networks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
As described above, regarding the current claim language, the 2 claimed features of 1) a phone having a blacklist and 2) a phone having a PLMN list which has a value indicating two or more PLMNs can be selected, may be considered (and rejected by the prior art) as being 2 different independent features and may not be interpreted as 1 feature which ties them together “in response to determining the PLMN value… accessing a blacklist” (as argued).
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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
Prosecution Insights