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
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 February 2026.
Regarding Previous Claim Objection
Previous objection to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9, 13-14, 17-18 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 9-10] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 9, 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on pages 10-11, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “wherein when a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier of a second network is the same as a PLMN identifier of the first network… wherein the first communication device is a terminal of the second network… the PLMN identifier of the second network is different from the PLMN identifier of the first network”.
Newly found reference Lindheimer discloses a system (Fig. 1) where subscription identity is transmitted as a network access ID when the PLMN IDs of different networks are the same while a UE belongs to the transmitting network [Paragraphs 282, 292].
Regarding claims 9 and 13, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, 8-18, 20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1:
At lines 5-6, “the same” lacks of antecedent basis.
At line 7, it is unclear whether recited “terminal” should refer to the “terminal” at line 4.
For claim 9:
At lines 7-8, “the same” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claim 13:
At lines 9-10, “the same” lacks of antecedent basis.
At line 11, it is unclear whether recited “terminal” should refer to the “terminals” previously recited.
For claims 2-8, 10-12, 14-20:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0107317) in view of Lindheimer et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0201592).
Regarding claim 1, Salmela teaches an information processing method (Fig. 1), comprising:
transmitting, by a first communication device, a subscriber identity in a first format to a first network (UE 2 transmits SID 10S to network 10 [Paragraphs 75-76]),
wherein the first network is a network accessed by a terminal (network 10),
[(NAI [Paragraph 75]), [
wherein when the first format is an international mobile subscriber identity format (IMSI [Paragraph 75]), [.
However, Salmela does not explicitly mention:
wherein when a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier of a second network is the same as a PLMN identifier of the first network… wherein the first communication device is a terminal of the second network… the PLMN identifier of the second network is different from the PLMN identifier of the first network.
Lindheimer teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein when a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier of a second network is the same as a PLMN identifier of the first network… wherein the first communication device is a terminal of the second network… the PLMN identifier of the second network is different from the PLMN identifier of the first network (Lindheimer discloses a system (Fig. 1) where subscription identity is transmitted as a network access ID when the PLMN IDs of different networks are the same while a UE belongs to the transmitting network [Paragraphs 282, 292]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Salmela) by having same PLMN ID (as taught by Lindheimer) for the purpose of reducing slicing failures (Lindheimer – Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 2, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the transmitting a subscriber identity in a first format to a first network comprises:
transmitting the subscriber identity in the network access identifier format to the first network when a first condition is satisfied (SID 10S being transmitted based on the type of receiving network),
wherein the first condition comprises:
the first network is a stand-alone non-public network (SNPN 10 [Paragraph 86]); and wherein the second network is one of the following: a stand-alone non-public network, a PLMN, or an integrated non-public network (second network being a PLMN [Paragraph 87]).
Regarding claim 3, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein only the subscriber identity in the network access identifier format is transmitted to the first network when the second network is the stand-alone non-public network (the SID 10S being transmitted when network 20 is a PLMN [Paragraph 87]).
Regarding claim 4, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein when the subscriber identity in the international mobile subscriber identity format is adopted ([Paragraphs 5, 16, 49]), the information processing method further comprises:
transmitting, by the first communication device, a network identifier of a second network or an index of the network identifier to the first network when a second condition is satisfied (second network ID 54 is being transmitted by UE 2 [Paragraphs 80, 82]),
wherein the second condition comprises at least one of following: the first network is a stand-alone non-public network; or the first communication device is the terminal of the second network, the second network is one of following: a stand-alone non-public network, a PLMN, or an integrated non-public network (Paragraphs 6, 78, 84-85).
Regarding claim 6, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 4, wherein the transmitting a network identifier or an index of the network identifier of a second network to the first network comprises at least one of the following:
transmitting the network identifier or the index of the network identifier of the second network to a radio access network-side device of the first network through a radio resource control signaling (network ID of second network to RAN of the network 10 [Paragraphs 78, 80, 82, 89]); or
transmitting the network identifier or the index of the network identifier of the second network to a core network-side device of the first network through a non-access stratum signaling ([Paragraphs 194, 205]).
Regarding claim 7, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 6, wherein the transmitted network identifier or index of the network identifier of the second network is outside the subscriber identity ([Paragraphs 5-10, 88]).
Regarding claim 8, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 1, wherein a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier in the subscriber identity in the international mobile subscriber identity format is different from a PLMN identifier of the first network accessed by the terminal when the subscriber identity in the international mobile subscriber identity format is adopted (each of the networks comprising its corresponding PLMN ID [Paragraphs 86-87]).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1, accordingly.
Regarding claim 10, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 9, wherein when the subscriber identity in the international mobile subscriber identity format is received ([Paragraphs 16-17]), the information processing method further comprises:
executing, by the second communication device, the first operation based on a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier in the subscriber identity in the international mobile subscriber identity format (network 10 executing the operation of UE 2 via PLMN) when the PLMN identifier in the subscriber identity in the international mobile subscriber identity format is different from a PLMN identifier of a first network accessed by the terminal (each of the networks comprising its corresponding PLMN ID [Paragraphs 86-87]).
Regarding claim 12, Salmela further teaches the information processing method according to claim 9, wherein the first operation comprises at least one of the following: determining information for identifying a second network or determining the second network; or the second network is a network to which the terminal belongs (UE 2 belonging to networks 10-30 comprising ID for network 20 under second network ID 54).
Regarding claims 13-16, 18-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
March 28, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633