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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/08/2025.
Claim interpretation
Applicant’s Arguments:
Applicant argues “the phrase ‘at least one of’ in the expression ‘at least one of A and B’ or ‘at least one of A or B’ is intended to cover (i) A only, (ii) B only, and (iii) both A and B.”
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's arguments/interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The plaining meaning of “at least one of A or B,” absent evidence to the contrary from the specification or prosecution history, is A and/or B, namely covering (i) A only, (ii) B only, and (iii) both A and B.”
However, the plain meaning of “at least one of A and B,” absent evidence to the contrary from the specification or prosecution history, is at least one of A and at least one of B. Please see details in Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004), particularly section regarding “At least one of” (e.g., pages 14-15 of the decision).
The plain meaning should be given unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111.01 I).
Therefore, if Applicants intends to cover (i) A only, (ii) B only, and (iii) both A and B, Applicant is recommended to amend limitations accordingly.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 112b
Applicant’s Arguments:
Applicant argues the amendments resolve the 112b issues.
Examiner’s Response:
Upon the claim amendments resolving the 112b issues, the 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102/103
Applicant’s Arguments:
Per claim 1, Applicant argues Venkataramanan describes connecting to the UE’s HPLMN (home network) whenever the home network is available. Applicant further cites Figs.3 and 4 off Venkataramanan and argues that Venkataramanan does not teach prioritizing connecting to a visiting network over a home network.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Venkataramanan teaches selecting/prioritizing connecting to a visiting network (VPLMN) over a home network (HPLMN) when both the visiting network and the home network are available, Specifically, Venkataramanan teaches when throughput of a HPLMN is low, using HPLMN costing too much time/power to load data, or HPLMN is low-order RAT, a VPLMN is selected over the HPLMN. In other words, when a HPLMN is available but having low throughput/performance, a VPLMN providing a better throughput/service is selected over the HPLMN. Please see the citations below (the bolded) from Venkataramanan for these teachings and emphasis added for the underlined. All the citations were presented in the previous Non-Final rejection (pages 6-7):
(Abstract, home public land mobile network (HPLMN) … visited public land mobile network (VPLMN); ¶ [0017-0020], the UE may not find a higher order RAT in the HPLMN … as a low throughput in the HPLMN border roaming scenario, the lower order RAT may not have a sufficiently high throughput rate and the data to be exchanged for the service request may require a significant amount of time and power to load the data … In either of these scenarios in which a connection to the HPLMN has a low throughput rate, there may be instances when a higher order RAT in a VPLMN may be available. In such a scenario, the VPLMN may provide a higher throughput connection than any connection in the HPLMN, specifically via roaming VPLMN cells. Assuming the VPLMN is a roaming partner for the UE (e.g., based on capabilities of the UE, based on an arrangement with a HPLMN cellular service provider of the UE, etc.), relatively good coverage may be available to the UE via the VPLMN. In fact, the UE may have already been using the higher order RAT in the VPLMN for data exchanges (e.g., in the border roaming scenario) … Thus, the UE may have benefited from the throughput rate of the VPLMN … there may be users who accept any consequences (e.g., financial) and may benefit or prefer use of roaming when a higher throughput rate option is available in the VPLMN over the HPLMN … For example, the user may have manually entered a setting to enable data roaming (e.g., data roaming switch ON) or entered preference settings indicating the use of data roaming when available. For such users, an improved data experience through a higher throughput rate using the VPLMN may be provided instead of latching onto a lower throughput rate cell using the HPLMN … the exemplary embodiments provide a re-selection to the VPLMN. Specifically, contrary to a priority order in which use of the HPLMN is prioritized over the VPLMN, the exemplary embodiments allow for a higher order RAT to be selected on the VPLMN (e.g., a LTE cell) in low throughput rate scenarios even when HPLMN cells are available … the UE may operate in a manner where network selections are performed automatically. With the first mechanism, when the UE is on a lower order RAT in the HPLMN or in cases of poor data performance/throughput on a higher order RAT in the HPLMN, the UE may utilize a re-selection to a higher order RAT in the VPLMN when available. Accordingly, the exemplary embodiments utilize an approach to place the UE in the VPLMN whenever HPLMN data performance is relatively poor on higher order RATS or camped on lower order RATs to provide an improved data exchange experience to the user of the UE. It is again noted that the higher order RAT on the VPLMN may relate to roaming VPLMN cells; ¶ [0040], the selection engine 250 may select between the HPLMN 120 and the VPLMN 130 through analysis of the throughput rates of the discovered HPLMN and VPLMN cells).
Please note that Venkataramanan even explicitly teaches “a connection to the HPLMN has a low throughput rate, there may be instances when a higher order RAT in a VPLMN may be available” (the citations above on the previous page), “benefit or prefer use … VPLMN over the HPLMN” (lines 5-6 of the citations above on this page), “using the VPLMN may be provided instead of latching onto a lower throughput rate cell using the HPLMN” (lines 9-10 of the citations above on this page),
“contrary to a priority order in which use of the HPLMN is prioritized over the VPLMN … selected on the VPLMN (e.g., a LTE cell) in low throughput rate scenarios even when HPLMN cells are available” (lines 11-14 of the citations above on the previous page), “when the UE is on a lower order RAT in the HPLMN or in cases of poor data performance/throughput on a higher order RAT in the HPLMN,… the UE may utilize a re-selection to a higher order RAT in the VPLMN when available” (lines 15-17 of the citations above on the previous page). These citations explicitly teach connections to both HPLMN and VPLMN are available. Specifically, UE is already being connected to a HPLMN or decides at least a connection to a HPLMN is available. The descriptions of a connection to HPLMN, available HPLMN cells, or latching on a HPLMN all teach that a connection to HPLMN is available. Further, these citations explicitly teaches selecting/prioritizing VPLMN over HPLMN when connections to both networks are available, because VPLMN provides better throughput/performance.
Further, Fig 3 of Venkataramanan argued by Applicant even validates selecting/prioritizing VPLMN over HPLMN when connections to both of the VPLMN and the HPLMN are available. Specifically, step 315 “Evaluate Current HPLMN Cell Throughput” means HPLMN Cell is available. In fact, “Current HPLMN” indicates the UE is already in HPLMN and namely connected to HPLMN. When the current HPLMN is available but the throughput is not good, then a VPLMN with a better throughput is evaluated and selected as indicated in steps 350-375/385. Low throughput does not mean unavailability of a connection. To the contrary, this means availability of a connection despite performance of the connection might not be good. Moreover, step 390 “Return to HPLMN” further validates the connection HPLMN is available and “Return” further validates the UE was connected to the current HPLMN in step 315. In other words, the current HPLMN has already been available to connect. The UE was already connected to VPLMN when searching for a VPLMN with a better throughput. The UE will also be able to return/connect to the current HPLMN again when criteria of selecting/prioritizing a VPLMN over HPLMN is not satisfied. A VPLMN is selected/prioritized (step 375/385) over a Current HPLMN (step 315, step 390), when connections to both the VPLMN and the HPLMN are available (step 375/385, step 315, step 390), because the VPLMN has a better/good throughput (step 370).
Applicant argues teachings of claim 1 by citing Fig.4 of Venkataramanan. Please note, Fig.4 has never been cited by the Examiner and the teachings/citations that the rejections are based upon were presented in the previous Non-Final Rejection and repeated in this Final-Rejection. The Applicant fails to address how the provided teachings/citations are insufficient. Further, a specification could include more than more embodiments of an invention. Assertion for lack of teachings in a particular embodiment not cited by the Examiner is not persuasive to demonstrate lack of teachings when other explicitly teachings/citations have already been provided to the Applicant in the office action(s). The burden is shifted to the Applicant to show how the rejection(s) fails to teach the claim limitation(s).
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained with the same teachings/citations previously presented.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Construction
For clarity of record, claim limitation, “the wireless device connecting to the visiting network instead of the home network in a situation in which connections to both the home network and the visiting network are available,” in method claim 5, and claim limitation, “the home network allowing the wireless device to connect to the visiting network instead of the home network in a situation in which connections to both the home network and the visiting network are available,” in method claim 15 are contingent limitation including a step (the home network allowing the wireless device to connect to the visiting network instead of the home network) that is not required to be performed when the condition precedent (in a situation in which connections to both the home network and the visiting network are available) is not met (See MPEP 2111.04, Section II)
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the wireless device is configured to receive …to prioritize … to connect” in claim 1 and similar limitations in claim 5; “the wireless device is configured to transmit … receive … communicate” in claims 4 and similar limitations in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkataramanan (US 2019/0132725 A1).
Per claims 1 and 5, Venkataramanan teaches “A wireless device comprising communication hardware and a processor configured to control the communication hardware such that: (Fig.2, ¶ [0031-0032], The UE 110 may include a processor 205, a memory arrangement 210 … a transceiver 225 … The processor 205 may be configured to execute a plurality of engines of the UE 110) the wireless device is configured to receive communication services from a home network; the wireless device is configured to prioritize connection to a visiting network over the home network; and the wireless device is configured to connect to the visiting network instead of the home network in a situation in which connections to both the home network and the visiting network are available” (Abstract, home public land mobile network (HPLMN) … visited public land mobile network (VPLMN); ¶ [0017-0020], the UE may not find a higher order RAT in the HPLMN … as a low throughput in the HPLMN border roaming scenario, the lower order RAT may not have a sufficiently high throughput rate and the data to be exchanged for the service request may require a significant amount of time and power to load the data … In either of these scenarios in which a connection to the HPLMN has a low throughput rate, there may be instances when a higher order RAT in a VPLMN may be available. In such a scenario, the VPLMN may provide a higher throughput connection than any connection in the HPLMN, specifically via roaming VPLMN cells. Assuming the VPLMN is a roaming partner for the UE (e.g., based on capabilities of the UE, based on an arrangement with a HPLMN cellular service provider of the UE, etc.), relatively good coverage may be available to the UE via the VPLMN. In fact, the UE may have already been using the higher order RAT in the VPLMN for data exchanges (e.g., in the border roaming scenario) … Thus, the UE may have benefited from the throughput rate of the VPLMN … there may be users who accept any consequences (e.g., financial) and may benefit or prefer use of roaming when a higher throughput rate option is available in the VPLMN over the HPLMN … For example, the user may have manually entered a setting to enable data roaming (e.g., data roaming switch ON) or entered preference settings indicating the use of data roaming when available. For such users, an improved data experience through a higher throughput rate using the VPLMN may be provided instead of latching onto a lower throughput rate cell using the HPLMN … the exemplary embodiments provide a re-selection to the VPLMN. Specifically, contrary to a priority order in which use of the HPLMN is prioritized over the VPLMN, the exemplary embodiments allow for a higher order RAT to be selected on the VPLMN (e.g., a LTE cell) in low throughput rate scenarios even when HPLMN cells are available … the UE may operate in a manner where network selections are performed automatically. With the first mechanism, when the UE is on a lower order RAT in the HPLMN or in cases of poor data performance/throughput on a higher order RAT in the HPLMN, the UE may utilize a re-selection to a higher order RAT in the VPLMN when available. Accordingly, the exemplary embodiments utilize an approach to place the UE in the VPLMN whenever HPLMN data performance is relatively poor on higher order RATS or camped on lower order RATs to provide an improved data exchange experience to the user of the UE. It is again noted that the higher order RAT on the VPLMN may relate to roaming VPLMN cells; ¶ [0040], the selection engine 250 may select between the HPLMN 120 and the VPLMN 130 through analysis of the throughput rates of the discovered HPLMN and VPLMN cells).
Per claims 9 and 15, Venkataramanan teaches “A home network operated by a home network operator, the home network comprising communication hardware and a processor configured to control the communication hardware such that: (Fig.1, ¶ [0028-0029], The HPLMN 120 may include different types of deployed RATs such as legacy radio access networks (RANs), an LTE RAN, a 4G network, a 5G network, etc. Accordingly, the HPLMN 120 may include corresponding network components for the UE 110 to establish a connection. For example, the HPLMN 120 may include base client stations (e.g., Node Bs, eNodeBs, HeNBs, gNBs, etc.) that are configured to send and receive traffic from UEs that are equipped with the appropriate chip set … the network arrangement 100 may also include a cellular core network, the Internet, an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), a network services backbone, etc. … a website server, an email host server, a streaming server, etc.; ¶ [0014], the first and second networks may be within the HPLMN or the VPLMN … the network component may be a base station, a router, a network management arrangement, a hub, an access point, etc.) the home network is configured to provide communication services to a wireless device; the home network is configured with a policy that prioritizes connection of the wireless device to a visiting network operated by a visiting network operator having a service agreement with the home network operator; and the home network is configured to allow the wireless device to connect to the visiting network instead of the home network in a situation in which connections to both the home network and the visiting network are available” (Abstract, home public land mobile network (HPLMN) … visited public land mobile network (VPLMN); ¶ [0017-0020], the UE may not find a higher order RAT in the HPLMN … as a low throughput in the HPLMN border roaming scenario, the lower order RAT may not have a sufficiently high throughput rate and the data to be exchanged for the service request may require a significant amount of time and power to load the data … In either of these scenarios in which a connection to the HPLMN has a low throughput rate, there may be instances when a higher order RAT in a VPLMN may be available. In such a scenario, the VPLMN may provide a higher throughput connection than any connection in the HPLMN, specifically via roaming VPLMN cells. Assuming the VPLMN is a roaming partner for the UE (e.g., based on capabilities of the UE, based on an arrangement with a HPLMN cellular service provider of the UE, etc.), relatively good coverage may be available to the UE via the VPLMN. In fact, the UE may have already been using the higher order RAT in the VPLMN for data exchanges (e.g., in the border roaming scenario) … Thus, the UE may have benefited from the throughput rate of the VPLMN … there may be users who accept any consequences (e.g., financial) and may benefit or prefer use of roaming when a higher throughput rate option is available in the VPLMN over the HPLMN … For example, the user may have manually entered a setting to enable data roaming (e.g., data roaming switch ON) or entered preference settings indicating the use of data roaming when available. For such users, an improved data experience through a higher throughput rate using the VPLMN may be provided instead of latching onto a lower throughput rate cell using the HPLMN … the exemplary embodiments provide a re-selection to the VPLMN. Specifically, contrary to a priority order in which use of the HPLMN is prioritized over the VPLMN, the exemplary embodiments allow for a higher order RAT to be selected on the VPLMN (e.g., a LTE cell) in low throughput rate scenarios even when HPLMN cells are available … the UE may operate in a manner where network selections are performed automatically. With the first mechanism, when the UE is on a lower order RAT in the HPLMN or in cases of poor data performance/throughput on a higher order RAT in the HPLMN, the UE may utilize a re-selection to a higher order RAT in the VPLMN when available. Accordingly, the exemplary embodiments utilize an approach to place the UE in the VPLMN whenever HPLMN data performance is relatively poor on higher order RATS or camped on lower order RATs to provide an improved data exchange experience to the user of the UE. It is again noted that the higher order RAT on the VPLMN may relate to roaming VPLMN cells; ¶ [0040], the selection engine 250 may select between the HPLMN 120 and the VPLMN 130 through analysis of the throughput rates of the discovered HPLMN and VPLMN cells; ¶ [0008], the roaming VPLMN having the roaming agreement with the HPLMN).
Per claims 13 and 19, Venkataramanan further teaches “wherein the home network is configured to prioritize either the visiting network or the home network based on at least one of (a) the wireless device being a particular type of communication device and (b) a user of the wireless device having a particular type of subscription to the home network” (¶ [0003], When the UE is capable of utilizing both the HPLMN or the VPLMN, the UE may prioritize the HPLMN over the VPLMN; ¶ [0019], there may be users who accept any consequences (e.g., financial) and may benefit or prefer use of roaming when a higher throughput rate option is available in the VPLMN over the HPLMN. For example, the user may have manually entered a setting to enable data roaming (e.g., data roaming switch ON) or entered preference settings indicating the use of data roaming when available. For such users, an improved data experience through a higher throughput rate using the VPLMN may be provided instead of latching onto a lower throughput rate cell using the HPLMN; ¶ [0048-0050], The selection engine 250 may be configured to select between the HPLMN 120 and the VPLMN 130 … when a data roaming capability is disabled, the HPLMN 120 may be prioritized over the VPLMN 130 … upon selection of a cell of the VPLMN 130, the selection engine 250 may also indicate that a limited service setting is to be used in which at least one connection capability is disabled. For example, the limited service setting may be an emergency only mode in which only emergency service related operations are allowed while all other operations are disabled; ¶ [0028], the user of the UE 110 may have a subscription or agreement to receive the services on the HPLMN 120 … for the UE 110 to establish a connection; ¶ [0056-057], the UE 110 determines if a data roaming capability is enabled (e.g., a data roaming switch is ON). The data roaming capability may be a setting that is manually set or automatically set by default … If the data roaming capability is deactivated, the UE 110 continues to 325 where the current HPLMN cell (whether higher order RAT or lower order RAT) is maintained for use in the data exchange … Prioritizing a previously connected cell in the VPLMN 130; ¶ [0064], enabling or disabling a data roaming capability may indicate which of the mechanisms to be used …).
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.
Claims 2-3, 6-7, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramanan (US 2019/0132725 A1), in view of Yegani (US 2009/0003359 A1).
Per claims 2, 6, 10, and 16, Venkataramanan implies a policy list such that “wherein the wireless device is configured to be programmed … in which the visiting network is prioritized over the home network” and “wherein the home network is configured to be programmed … in which the visiting network is prioritized over the home network” (Figs.1-2; ¶ [0020], the exemplary embodiments allow for a higher order RAT to be selected on the VPLMN (e.g., a LTE cell) in low throughput rate scenarios even when HPLMN cells are available … utilize an approach to place the UE in the VPLMN whenever HPLMN data performance is relatively poor on higher order RATS or camped on lower order RATs to provide an improved data exchange experience to the user of the UE; ¶ [0044-0045], the UE 110 may select a cell of the HPLMN 120 or the VPLMN 130 based on an initial determination by the status engine 235 and the quality engine 240 indicating (1) a current connection to a higher order RAT cell providing an insufficient throughput rate or (2) a current connection to a lower order RAT cell … processor may be configured with a capability of determining the throughput rate metric. By using the predetermined threshold, the selection engine 250 may evaluate a currently connected cell over a time window and failure to meet the predetermined threshold may be used as a selection criteria to either proceed with a data transfer in the HPLMN cells or move to a higher order RAT VPLMN cell (as discovered by the scanning engine 245) and perform the data transfer … the selection engine 250 may evaluate the cells of the VPLMN 130 over a time window and failure to meet the predetermined threshold may be used as a selection criteria to select another cell of the VPLMN 130 prior to remaining on the lower order RAT cell of the HPLMN to perform the data exchange; see additional teachings in ¶ [0040]; ¶ [0033], the engines 235-250 alternatively may also be represented as components of one or more multifunctional programs; ¶ [0028], the user of the UE 110 may have a subscription or agreement to receive the services on the HPLMN 120 … the HPLMN 120 may include corresponding network components for the UE 110 to establish a connection. For example, the HPLMN 120 may include base client stations (e.g., Node Bs, eNodeBs, HeNBs, gNBs, etc.) that are configured to send and receive traffic from UEs that are equipped with the appropriate chip set … the user may only have a subscriber profile for the UE 110 on the HPLMN 120 … the roaming VPLMN may be a VPLMN that has a roaming agreement with the HPLMN 120). Although Venkataramanan does not explicitly disclose “a priority list,” however such programming for determining to use/prioritize home network or visiting network as taught by Venkataramanan can be considered as (implies) “a priority list.”
Yegani teaches a priority list to prioritize a visiting network or a home network based on different types of services (¶ [0021], System 10 may allow endpoint 12 to concurrently connect to visited network 14 a and home network 14 b by simultaneously engaging two anchors (e.g., a home anchor in home network 14 b and a visited anchor in visited network 14 b). By providing dual anchors, communication system 10 may improve the level network performance delivered to endpoint 12 by tailoring the use of particular resources in both visited network 14 a and home network 14 b to the specific applications being invoked by endpoint 12. As an example and not by way of limitation, endpoint 12 may use visited network 14 a for some applications, and home network 14 b for other applications. When anchoring in visited network 14 a, endpoint 12 may experience lower latency and packet loss while roaming, thus facilitating use of certain applications such as real-time VoIP. When anchoring in home network 14 b, endpoint 12 may use certain services or features supplied by home network 14 b that are not otherwise offered by visited network 14 a (e.g., firewalling, filtering, etc.) thus facilitating use of service-specific applications such as web browsing; ¶ [0012], an application may include one or more Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-based communication applications, such as, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) telephony. As another example, an application may include one or more non SIP-based applications, such as, for example, video streaming, gaming, or collaboration).
Thus, given the teaching of Yegani, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a priority list to prioritize visiting/home network based on different types of services of Yegani into prioritizing visiting/home network of Venkataramanan, such that a priority list would be used to prioritize a visiting network for a first set of services and prioritize a home work for a second set of services. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yegani recognizes that it would have been advantageous to use different network for different services to improve network performance for a UE (¶ [0021], System 10 may allow endpoint 12 to concurrently connect to visited network 14 a and home network 14 b by simultaneously engaging two anchors (e.g., a home anchor in home network 14 b and a visited anchor in visited network 14 b). By providing dual anchors, communication system 10 may improve the level network performance delivered to endpoint 12 by tailoring the use of particular resources in both visited network 14 a and home network 14 b to the specific applications being invoked by endpoint 12. As an example and not by way of limitation, endpoint 12 may use visited network 14 a for some applications, and home network 14 b for other applications. When anchoring in visited network 14 a, endpoint 12 may experience lower latency and packet loss while roaming, thus facilitating use of certain applications such as real-time VoIP. When anchoring in home network 14 b, endpoint 12 may use certain services or features supplied by home network 14 b that are not otherwise offered by visited network 14 a (e.g., firewalling, filtering, etc.) thus facilitating use of service-specific applications such as web browsing). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, incorporating a known method of prioritizing visiting/home network based on types of services as taught by Yegani into another known method of prioritizing visiting/home network as taught by Venkataramanan to yield predictable results, especially given that Yegani and Venkataramanan are both directed to prioritization based on better throughput/latency in a visiting network (KSR MPEP 2143).
Per claims 3, 7, 11, and 17, Yegani further teaches “wherein: the priority list prioritizes the visiting network over the home network for a first set of communication services; and the priority list prioritizes the home network over the visiting network for a second set of communication services different from the first set” (¶ [0021], System 10 may allow endpoint 12 to concurrently connect to visited network 14 a and home network 14 b by simultaneously engaging two anchors (e.g., a home anchor in home network 14 b and a visited anchor in visited network 14 b). By providing dual anchors, communication system 10 may improve the level network performance delivered to endpoint 12 by tailoring the use of particular resources in both visited network 14 a and home network 14 b to the specific applications being invoked by endpoint 12. As an example and not by way of limitation, endpoint 12 may use visited network 14 a for some applications, and home network 14 b for other applications. When anchoring in visited network 14 a, endpoint 12 may experience lower latency and packet loss while roaming, thus facilitating use of certain applications such as real-time VoIP. When anchoring in home network 14 b, endpoint 12 may use certain services or features supplied by home network 14 b that are not otherwise offered by visited network 14 a (e.g., firewalling, filtering, etc.) thus facilitating use of service-specific applications such as web browsing; ¶ [0012], an application may include one or more Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-based communication applications, such as, for example, Internet Protocol (IP) telephony. As another example, an application may include one or more non SIP-based applications, such as, for example, video streaming, gaming, or collaboration). [Comment: the combination and motivation is the same as that of claims 2/6/10/16.]
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramanan (US 2019/0132725 A1), in view of Zaus (US 2020/0344606 A1), hereinafter Venkataramanan-Zaus.
Per claims 14 and 20, Venkataramanan does not teach “wherein the home network is configured to transmit a message to the wireless device via the visiting network confirming the communication services provided to the wireless device.”
Zaus teaches “wherein the home network is configured to transmit a message to the wireless device via the visiting network confirming the communication services provided to the wireless device” (Fig12; ¶ [0188-0189], a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN) … a Home Public Land Mobile Network HPLMN … the HPLMN UDM device 1206 sends a response 1214 to the registration request 1210. Such a response may include authentication related information, e.g., one or more authentication keys or associated information with regard to the UE based on one or more RATs. In some implementations, this response 1214 can include a Nudm_SDM_Get_Response message … The HPLMN UDM device 1206 sends the response 1214 including the Nudm_SDM_Get service operation to the VPLMN AMF device 1204. The response 1214 includes the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations; ¶ [0191], The VPLMN UDM device 1204 sends a registration confirmation 1218 message indicating that the registration of the UE is accepted. The VPLMN AMF device 1204 sends, to the UE 1202, the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations … to the UE in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message; also see additional/similar teachings in Fig.13 for steps 1320-1326 and the corresponding paragraphs for steps 1320-1326;).
Thus, given the teaching of Zaus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of home network sending confirmation to UE via visiting network of Zaus into providing network services to UE of Venkataramanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, incorporating known methods of HPLMN/VPLMN to yield predictable results (KSR MPEP 2143).
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataramanan (US 2019/0132725 A1), in view of Zaus (US 2020/0344606 A1), and further in view of Balasubramaniam (US 2025/0088997 A1).
Per claims 4 and 8, Venkataramanan does not teach “wherein the wireless device is configured to (i) transmit a connection request to the visiting network identifying the wireless device and a set of desired communication services, (ii) communicate with the visiting network after receiving a positive connection response from the visiting network.”
Zaus teaches “wherein the wireless device is configured to (i) transmit a connection request to the visiting network identifying the wireless device …, (Fig.12, step 1208; ¶ [0188], The UE 1202 is configured send a registration request 1208 to a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN) access and mobility management functions (AMFs) device 1204) … The VPLMN AMF device 1204 is configured to send a request 1210 to register the UE to a Home Public Land Mobile Network HPLMN unified data management (UDM) device 1206 … As part of the registration procedure, the VPLMN AMF invokes Nud_SDM_Get service operation message to the HPLMN UDM device 1206 to get amongst other information the access and mobility Subscription data for the UE; Fig.13, step 1310; ¶ [0202], the UE 1302 initiates registration by sending registration request message 1310 to the VPLMN AMF device 1304) (ii) communicate with the visiting network after receiving a positive connection response from the visiting network (Fig.12, step 1218; ¶ [0191], The VPLMN UDM device 1204 sends a registration confirmation 1218 message indicating that the registration of the UE is accepted. The VPLMN AMF device 1204 sends, to the UE 1202, the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combination … to the UE in the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message; Fig.13, step 1326; ¶ [0208], The VPLMN AMF device 1304 configures a registration accepted message 1326 … The registration accepted message 1326 is sent to the UE 1302. In response to receiving the registration accept message 1326) (Fig.12, step 1224; ¶ [0195-0196], The UE 1202 sends a registration message 1224 to the VPLMN AMF device 1204 when device 1206 has requested an acknowledgement from the UE and the UE verified that the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations … The UE 1202 sends the registration completed message 1224 message to the serving AMF device 1204 with a transparent container including the UE acknowledgement … a transparent container with a UE 1202 acknowledgement was received in the registration message 1224; Fig.13, step 1330; ¶ [0209-0211], the UE sends the registration complete message 1330 to the serving AMF … The VPLMN AMF device 1304; ¶ [0074], handling local enforcement to apply QoS service level agreements (SLAs) (e.g., in VPLMN); charging data collection and charging interface (e.g., in VPLMN); lawful intercept (e.g., in VPLMN for SM events and interface to LI system).
Thus, given the teaching of Zaus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of connection request/reply between UE and a visiting network of Zaus into connection request to connect UE to a visiting network of Venkataramanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods of connection requests to a visiting network to yield predictable results, especially given that Venkataramanan and Zaus are in the same field of endeavor of VLMN/HLMN (KSR MPEP 2143).
Further, Zaus teaches a UE transmitting a connection/registration request to a visiting network VPLMN for communication services (e.g., roaming/data/telecommunication services, Abstract and ¶ [0074]). In other words, Zaus teaches, upon the connection request, the visiting network is able to identify what services the UE requests/desires and what services to provide to the UE. Therefore, Zaus implies the UE transmitting a connection request to the visiting network identifying “a set of desired communication services,” although Zaus does not explicitly disclose “a set of desired communication services” in the request.
Balasubramaniam explicitly teaches a UE transmitting a connection/registration request identifying a set of desired network/communication services (¶ [0159], the UE 401 provides a list of requested analytics IDs to the AMF 405 in the registration request message. The list of requested analytics IDs may comprise a list of services (associated with the analytics IDs) that the UE 401 would like to gain access to. The list of requested analytics IDs may be used by the AMF 405 (i.e. the network) to determine which services to offer to the UE 401; ¶ [0171], the gNB 403 (RAN) uses a plurality of the analytics IDs that have been authorised by the 5GC, to provide a plurality of services to the UE 401; ¶ [0002], Non-limiting examples of services provided comprise two-way or multi-way calls, data communication or multimedia services and access to a data network system, such as the Internet).
Thus, given the teaching of Balasubramaniam, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a UE’s connection request identifying desired services of Balasubramaniam into UE’s connection request to visiting network of Venkataramanan-Zaus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Balasubramaniam recognizes that it would have been advantageous for a UE’s request to identify requested/desired services for the network to determine which services to offer to the UE (¶ [0159], the UE 401 provides a list of requested analytics IDs to the AMF 405 in the registration request message. The list of requested analytics IDs may comprise a list of services (associated with the analytics IDs) that the UE 401 would like to gain access to. The list of requested analytics IDs may be used by the AMF 405 (i.e. the network) to determine which services to offer to the UE 401). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods of connection requests to yield predictable results (KSR MPEP 2143).
Per claims 12 and 18, Venkataramanan does not teach “wherein the home network is configured to (i) receive a connection request from the visiting network identifying the wireless device and a set of desired communication services and (ii) transmit a positive or negative connection response to the visiting network”
Zaus teaches “wherein the home network is configured to (i) receive a connection request from the visiting network identifying the wireless device … (Fig.12, step 1210; ¶ [0188-0189], The UE 1202 is configured send a registration request 1208 to a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN) access and mobility management functions (AMFs) device 1204 … The VPLMN AMF device 1204 is configured to send a request 1210 to register the UE to a Home Public Land Mobile Network HPLMN unified data management (UDM) device 1206 … The HPLMN UDM device 1206 receives the request 1210 and determines whether to send steering of roaming (SoR) information 1212 back to the VPLMN AMF device 1204, and whether to request an acknowledgement from the UE; see additional teachings in Figs.13-14) and (ii) transmit a positive or negative connection response to the visiting network” (Fig.12, step 1214; ¶ [0189-0191], the HPLMN UDM device 1206 sends a response 1214 to the registration request 1210. Such a response may include authentication related information, e.g., one or more authentication keys or associated information with regard to the UE based on one or more RATs … The HPLMN UDM device 1206 sends the response 1214 including the Nudm_SDM_Get service operation to the VPLMN AMF device 1204 … The response 1214 includes the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations … The VPLMN UDM device 1204 sends a registration confirmation 1218 message indicating that the registration of the UE is accepted. The VPLMN AMF device 1204 sends, to the UE 1202, the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations; see additional teachings in Figs.13-14 and ¶ [0196])
Thus, given the teaching of Zaus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a connection request/reply between a visiting network and a home network for a UE of Zaus into connection request to connect UE to a visiting network of Venkataramanan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods of connection requests to a visiting network to yield predictable results, especially given that Venkataramanan and Zaus are in the same field of endeavor of VLMN/HLMN (KSR MPEP 2143).
Further, Zaus teaches a home network HPLMN receiving a connection/registration request from a visiting network VPLMN for communication services of a UE (e.g., roaming/data/telecommunication services, Abstract and ¶ [0074]). In other words, Zaus teaches, upon the connection request, the home network is able to identify what services the UE requests/desires and what services to provide to the UE. Therefore, Zaus implies the home network receiving a connection request identifying “a set of desired communication services,” although Zaus does not explicitly disclose “a set of desired communication services” in the request.
Balasubramaniam explicitly teaches a connection/registration request identifying a set of desired network/communication services (¶ [0159], the UE 401 provides a list of requested analytics IDs to the AMF 405 in the registration request message. The list of requested analytics IDs may comprise a list of services (associated with the analytics IDs) that the UE 401 would like to gain access to. The list of requested analytics IDs may be used by the AMF 405 (i.e. the network) to determine which services to offer to the UE 401; ¶ [0171], the gNB 403 (RAN) uses a plurality of the analytics IDs that have been authorised by the 5GC, to provide a plurality of services to the UE 401; ¶ [0002], Non-limiting examples of services provided comprise two-way or multi-way calls, data communication or multimedia services and access to a data network system, such as the Internet).
Thus, given the teaching of Balasubramaniam, it would