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) 49-68 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.
The applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112 rejections but have introduced new 112(b) issues do to lack of clarity in the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 49-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 49 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: Claims 49 and 59 cover a UE getting “system information with a type parameter” that is “associated with a GID”. Claims 49 and 59 specify that the radio node is “preconfigured with GIDs identifying a plurality of networks and/or parameters” but such a preconfiguration at the radio node does not define any “GID” from the perspective of the user equipment which receives the “system information with a type parameter”. It is therefore unclear how the claimed type parameter would indicate to the UE “the plurality of types of service” “offered by the one or more network identified by the GID” when the UE knows nothing about the GID, a value that is preconfigured at the radio node. The claims omit the essential step of the radio node informing the UE of the “one or more networks identified by the GID” in order to define how “which of the types of service are offered by the one or more networks identified by the GID”.
Claims 54 and 64 recite the limitation "the one or more networks identified by the GID". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 54 and 64 do not establish that the GID identifies “one or more networks”.
Claims 54 and 64 recite the limitation "the service" in the final limitation of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The type parameter comprises values which each correspond to a different one of the a plurality of types of service and that the type parameter indicates which of the plurality of types of service are offered by the one or more networks identified by the GID. Therefore, there is no single “service” indicated by the type parameter that can be referred to with the article “the”.
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) 49-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0319697 by Chadramouli et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0312359 by Shih et al.
As to claim 49, Chardramouli teaches a method, performed by a radio network node, of supporting selection by User Equipment (UE) of a wireless communications network, the method comprising: transmitting system information (ref. no. 804) with a type parameter associated with a tenant group (paragraphs 4 and 87) wherein the type parameter comprises a plurality of values, each value corresponding to a different one of a plurality of types of service, the type parameter indicating which of the plurality of types of service are offered by the one or more networks (ref. no. 804), and wherein the plurality of types of services comprise: providing authentication services for a Stand-alone Non Public Network (SNPN) (ref. no. 804, SNPN),and providing authentication for onboarding services (ref. no. 804, PLMN-2); however, Chardramouli does not explicitly teach that the radio node is preconfigured with group identities (GIDs) identifying a plurality of networks and/or type parameters and that the type parameter is “associated with a GID” and indicates which of the plurality of types of services are offered by the one or more networks identified by the GID.
Shih teaches a radio node is preconfigured with group identities (GIDs) identifying a plurality of networks and/or type parameters and that the type parameter is “associated with a GID” and indicates which of the plurality of types of services are offered by the one or more networks identified by the GID (final paragraph on page 11 of provisional 63/166,148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile service management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Chardramouli regarding providing parameters related to a service to a UE with the teachings of Shih regarding associating parameters with group identifies because Chardamouli suggests that parameters could be tied to tenant groups (paragraphs 4 and 87) and the GIDs disclosed by Shih provide a specific way of implementing the teachings related to tenant groups taught by Chardramouli.
As to claim 54, Chardramouli teaches a method, performed by a user equipment (UE), of selecting a wireless communications network, the method comprising: receiving system information with a type parameter associated with a tenant group (paragraphs 4 and 87) wherein the type parameter indicates comprises a plurality of values, each value corresponding to a different one of a plurality of types of service, the type parameter indicating which of the plurality of types of service are offered by the one or more networks (ref. no. 804), and wherein the plurality of types of services comprise: providing authentication services for a Stand-alone Non Public Network (SNPN) (ref. no. 804, SNPN),and providing authentication for onboarding services (ref. no. 804, PLMN-2); and selecting a network to which to connect, in response to the service indicated by the type parameter (ref. no. 806) ; however, Chardramouli does not explicitly teach that the radio node is preconfigured with group identities (GIDs) identifying a plurality of networks and/or type parameters and that the type parameter is “associated with a GID” and indicates which of the plurality of types of services are offered by the one or more networks identified by the GID.
Shih teaches a radio node is preconfigured with group identities (GIDs) identifying a plurality of networks and/or type parameters and that the type parameter is “associated with a GID” and indicates which of the plurality of types of services are offered by the one or more networks identified by the GID (final paragraph on page 11 of provisional 63/166,148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile service management art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Chardramouli regarding providing parameters related to a service to a UE with the teachings of Shih regarding associating parameters with group identifies because Chardamouli suggests that parameters could be tied to tenant groups (paragraphs 4 and 87) and the GIDs disclosed by Shih provide a specific way of implementing the teachings related to tenant groups taught by Chardramouli.
As to claims 59 and 64, the radio access node 104 and UE 102 of Chardamouli and the cell device and UE of Shih has the generic hardware claimed by the applicant.
As to claims 50, 55, 60, and 65, Shih teaches the type parameter is represented by a separate service type indication in GID information in the last paragraph on page 11 of provisional.
As to claims 51, 52, 56, 57, 61, 62, 66, and 67, see page 12 of provisional of Shih examples.
Conclusion
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights