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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 9/18/2023 are accepted.
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the peer-to-peer communication" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this claim should be dependent upon claim 4. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross et al. (US-2019/0200204 hereinafter, Gross).
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches a method for automatic public land mobile network (PLMN) serving system reselection based on E911 public safety answer point (PSAP) termination failures (Abstract), the method comprising:
attempting, at a user equipment (UE), a connection to the PSAP; (Fig. 5 [502] and Page 6 [0065] “mobile locator component 126 detects initiation of an emergency communication by mobile device 116 to PSAP 114 using a first communication path in which the first communication path utilizes emergency communication components associated with the mobile communications service provider”)
receiving, at the UE, an indication the connection to the PSAP failed; (Fig. 5 [510 & Yes] and Page 6 [0066] “If mobile locator component 126 has received the indication that the attempted emergency communication to PSAP 114 using the first path has failed, process 500 continues to block 512.”)
based on the indication (Fig. 5 [510 & Yes]), communicating metrics to the PLMN (Page 6 [0067] “ In block 514, mobile locator component 126 determines an identity of the PSAP (i.e., PSAP 114) of the failed emergency communication. In block 516, mobile locator component 126 notifies the mobile communication service provider of the failed emergency communication to PSAP 114”), the metrics corresponding to a cell site providing service to the UE while the UE attempted the connection to the PSAP. (Pages 6-7 [0068] “In a particular embodiment, mobile locator component 126 notifies the mobile communications service provider of the failed emergency call. In another particular embodiment, mobile locator component 126 provides caller information, location information, and destination information of the mobile communications service provider.”, Page 7 [0069] and Claim 9 i.e. location of failed call and service provider of failed call)
Regarding claim 14, Gross teaches a system for automatic public land mobile network (PLMN) serving system reselection based on E911 public safety answer point (PSAP) termination failures (Abstract), the system comprising:
a node (Fig. 1 [118]) configured to wireless communicate with user equipment (UE); (Fig. 1 [116]) and
the UE (Fig. 1 [116]) configured to:
(1) attempt a connection to the PSAP; (Fig. 5 [502] and Page 6 [0065] “mobile locator component 126 detects initiation of an emergency communication by mobile device 116 to PSAP 114 using a first communication path in which the first communication path utilizes emergency communication components associated with the mobile communications service provider”)
(2) receive an indication the connection to the PSAP failed; (Fig. 5 [510 & Yes] and Page 6 [0066] “If mobile locator component 126 has received the indication that the attempted emergency communication to PSAP 114 using the first path has failed, process 500 continues to block 512.”)
(3) based on the indication (Fig. 5 [510 & Yes]), communicating metrics to the PLMN (Page 6 [0067] “ In block 514, mobile locator component 126 determines an identity of the PSAP (i.e., PSAP 114) of the failed emergency communication. In block 516, mobile locator component 126 notifies the mobile communication service provider of the failed emergency communication to PSAP 114”), the metrics corresponding to a cell site providing service to the UE while the UE attempted the connection to the PSAP. (Pages 6-7 [0068] “In a particular embodiment, mobile locator component 126 notifies the mobile communications service provider of the failed emergency call. In another particular embodiment, mobile locator component 126 provides caller information, location information, and destination information of the mobile communications service provider.”, Page 7 [0069] and Claim 9 i.e. location of failed call and service provider of failed call)
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, 6, 8, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US-2019/0200204 hereinafter, Gross) in view of Li et al. (US-2014/0148169 hereinafter, Li).
Regarding claim 2, Gross teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting attempting, at the UE, additional connections to the PSAP until a threshold number of failed connections is reached.
In an analogous art, Li teaches a method and apparatus for management of RRC connection requests (Abstract) that includes attempting, at the UE, additional connections to a server (Page 4 [0036] “Method 200 can begin at 202 in which the end user device 110 monitors for RRC connection requests being generated and transmitted by the end user device to a server of a first cell. The monitoring can include identifying failed requests, such as requests that have been ignored or requests that have been rejected. For example, the end user device can monitor for the requests and can then monitor for an RRCConnectionSetup message being returned by the server of the first cell or for an RRCConnectionReject message being returned by the server of the first cell”) until a threshold number (Page 4 [0038] “the configuration information can be threshold values that are directly to be applied by the end user device 110 in determining whether to perform cell barring, such as a maximum number of failed connection requests and/or a maximum time period over which the failed connection requests are to occur. In this example, the configuration information can be other threshold values that can be directly applied by the end user device”) of failed connections is reached. (Fig. 2 [206, 210, 218 & Yes] and for complete context, see Page 4 [0036] through Page 5 [0040])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Gross after modifying it to incorporate the ability to utilize a threshold for failed connection requests of Li since it enables a UE to attempt to communicate with a different base station or RAT that is able to complete the communication request while there are issues at the original base station or RAT. (Li Page 1 [0010] and Page 6 [0055])
Regarding claim 6, Gross in view of Li teaches receiving, at the UE, a forbidden network list (Li Page 3 [0028] “The NAS can control the RAT(s) in which the cell selection should be performed, for instance by indicating RAT(s) associated with the selected PLMN, and by maintaining a list of forbidden registration area(s) and a list of equivalent PLMNs” and “The NAS can be informed if the cell selection and reselection results in changes in the received system information relevant for NAS. For normal service, the end user device 110 can camp on a suitable cell, tune to that cell's control channel(s) so that the UE can receive system information from the PLMN while receiving registration area information from the PLMN (e.g., tracking area information) and receiving other AS and NAS Information”) indicating the cell site is fraudulent. (the Examiner views “fraudulent” to be equivalent to barred, Li Page 8 [0078-0081])
Regarding claim 8, Gross in view of Li teaches wherein the metrics include received signal strength indicator (RSSI) values. (Li Pages 3-4 [0031 & measured cell RX level value RSRP] and Page 4 [0035] “During the initial phase of the RRC connection, the E-UTRAN may configure the end user device 110 to perform measurement reporting”)
Regarding claims 15, 18 and 20, the limitations of claims 15, 18 and 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2, 6 and 8.
Claims 3, 7, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Huang-Fu et al. (US-2019/0357116 hereinafter, Huang-Fu).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Gross teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting inferring, at the UE, the cell site is fraudulent and storing, at a subscriber identity module (SIM) card associated with the UE, the forbidden network list.
In an analogous art, Huang-Fu teaches an enhanced handling of a forbidden PLMN list (Abstract) that includes receiving an indication (Fig. 6 [602]), inferring, at the UE, the cell site is fraudulent (Fig. 6 [603], Page 1 [0008] “if the reject message is from a fake operator, then the PLMN ID will be added to the list of “Forbidden PLMNs” in the SIM/USIM” and Page 4 [0034]) and storing the forbidden network list in the SIM/USSIM at the UE. (Page 1 [0007])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Gross after modifying it to incorporate the ability to infer a cell site is fraudulent of Huang-Fu since recognizing the cell site is fraudulent and locally storing the record will allow the UE to save power and system resources when there is no chance of success with the fraudulent site. (Huang-Fu Page 1 [0007])
Regarding claims 16 and 19, the limitations of claims 16 and 19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 3 and 7.
Claims 4, 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Huang-Fu as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Shaik et al. (US-2019/0110205 hereinafter, Shaik).
Regarding claim 4, Gross in view of Huang-Fu teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting providing, by the UE, a peer-to-peer communication to other UEs in proximity to the UE indicating the cell site is fraudulent.
In an analogous art, Shaik teaches a method for operating a wireless communication device (Abstract) that includes recognizing a base station is a fake base station (Fig. 2B [S17] and Page 1 [0015]) that includes providing, by the UE, a peer-to-peer communication to other UEs in proximity to the UE indicating the cell site is fraudulent. (Page 5 [0091 & 0093] i.e. d2d alert of fake base station)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Gross in view of Huang-Fu after modifying it to incorporate the ability to send a device to device warning of a fake base station of Shaik since it enables removing nearby devices from the harmful base station.
Regarding claim 5, Gross in view of Huang-Fu teaches receiving an indication (Huang-Fu Fig. 6 [602]), inferring, at the UE, the cell site is fraudulent (Huang-Fu Fig. 6 [603], Page 1 [0008] “if the reject message is from a fake operator, then the PLMN ID will be added to the list of “Forbidden PLMNs” in the SIM/USIM” and Page 4 [0034]) and storing the forbidden network list in the SIM/USSIM at the UE. (Huang-Fu Page 1 [0007])
Gross in view of Huang-Fu differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting the indication is a peer-to-peer communication.
In an analogous art, Shaik teaches a method for operating a wireless communication device (Abstract) that includes recognizing a base station is a fake base station (Fig. 2B [S17] and Page 1 [0015]) that includes providing, by the UE, a peer-to-peer communication to other UEs in proximity to the UE indicating the cell site is fraudulent. (Page 5 [0091 & 0093] i.e. d2d alert of fake base station)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the indication in Gross in view of Huang-Fu for the peer-to-peer warning of Shaik and the results of the combination would have been predictable in that the base station would have been added to the forbidden list stored in the SIM/USIM of the receiving peer-to-peer UE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since it is a pro-active method to share to nearby devices, the determination of a fraudulent base station and to avoid it.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 4 and 5.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Miao et al. (US-2020/01692925 hereinafter, Miao).
Regarding claim 9, Gross teaches a method for automatic public land mobile network (PLMN) serving system reselection based on E911 public safety answer point (PSAP) termination failures (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, at the PLMN, metrics from a user equipment (UE) indicating a connection to the PSAP failed (Page 6 [0067] “ In block 514, mobile locator component 126 determines an identity of the PSAP (i.e., PSAP 114) of the failed emergency communication. In block 516, mobile locator component 126 notifies the mobile communication service provider of the failed emergency communication to PSAP 114”), the metrics corresponding to a cell site providing service to the UE while the UE attempted the connection to the PSAP; (Pages 6-7 [0068] “In a particular embodiment, mobile locator component 126 notifies the mobile communications service provider of the failed emergency call. In another particular embodiment, mobile locator component 126 provides caller information, location information, and destination information of the mobile communications service provider.”, Page 7 [0069] and Claim 9 i.e. location of failed call and service provider of failed call)
determining, at the PLMN, a probability score for the cell site corresponding to the metrics; (Page 7 [0070-0071] “mobile locator component 126 analyzes the history of failed emergency calls to estimate a probability of whether a new call failing” and “determines a failure probability of a call originating from a particular geographical area over a specific carrier during a certain time of day”) and
based on the probability score, determining to take a preemptive action. (Page 7 [0071])
Gross differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting based on the probability score, determining the cell site is fraudulent.
In an analogous art, Miao teaches a method and system for fake base station detection (Abstract) that includes collecting information to determine the probability of a fake base station (Page 2 [0026] and Fig. 3A) that includes determining, based on the probability score, that a cell site is fraudulent. (Fig. 3B and Page 7 [0083-0086] “At 314, if the comparison using the second score indicates that the base station is probably fake, then the logic flows to 316 and the base station is barred. In this application “probably” means with a high likelihood, e.g., a base station characterized by this score is fake with a probability higher than 95%”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the preemptive action in Gross with the determination that a cell site is fraudulent of Miao and the results of the combination would have been predictable; prior to any “action” is the result of the probability score. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since it provides justification to perform any subsequent “action”.
Regarding claim 10, Gross in view of Miao teaches updating a forbidden network list with the cell site. (Miao Page 7 [0084] “the logic flows to 306 and one or more base stations are barred by the device”)
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Miao as applied to claims 9 and 10 above, and further in view of Li.
Regarding claim 11, Gross in view of Miao teaches the limitations of claims 9 and 10 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting communicating the forbidden network list to the UE and to other UEs in proximity to the UE, wherein the forbidden network list is stored on a subscriber identity module (SIM) card associated with the UE and the other UEs.
In an analogous art, Li teaches a method and apparatus for management of RRC connection requests (Abstract) that includes receiving, at the UEs, forbidden network lists. (Li Page 3 [0028] “The NAS can control the RAT(s) in which the cell selection should be performed, for instance by indicating RAT(s) associated with the selected PLMN, and by maintaining a list of forbidden registration area(s) and a list of equivalent PLMNs” and “The NAS can be informed if the cell selection and reselection results in changes in the received system information relevant for NAS. For normal service, the end user device 110 can camp on a suitable cell, tune to that cell's control channel(s) so that the UE can receive system information from the PLMN while receiving registration area information from the PLMN (e.g., tracking area information) and receiving other AS and NAS Information”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Gross in view of Miao after modifying it to incorporate the ability to share a forbidden network list to UEs of Li since it enables the PLMN to protect other UEs from connecting to the fraudulent base station, thereby increasing user satisfaction with the network.
Regarding claim 13, Gross in view of Miao and Li teaches wherein the metrics include received signal strength indicator (RSSI) values. (Li Pages 3-4 [0031 & measured cell RX level value RSRP] and Page 4 [0035] “During the initial phase of the RRC connection, the E-UTRAN may configure the end user device 110 to perform measurement reporting”)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross in view of Miao and Li as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Huang-Fu.
Regarding claim 12, Gross in view of Miao and Li teaches the limitations of claim 11 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the forbidden network list is stored on a subscriber identity module (SIM) card associated with the UE and the other UEs.
In an analogous art, Huang-Fu teaches an enhanced handling of a forbidden PLMN list (Abstract) that includes storing the forbidden network list in the SIM/USSIM at the UE. (Page 1 [0007])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Gross in view of Miao and Li after modifying it to incorporate the ability to locally store the forbidden network list at the SIM of the UEs of Huang-Fu since recognizing a cell site as fraudulent and locally storing the record will allow the UE to save power and system resources when there is no chance of success with the fraudulent site. (Huang-Fu Page 1 [0007])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646