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 .
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 8 and 17 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 8 and 17 recites the limitation "the prohibited service" in line 1 of the respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SHARMA et. al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0303846 A1, hereinafter, ‘Sharma’.
Consider Claim 10 and as applied to the NTCRM of Claims 19-20(includes enabling the restricted UE) and the Method of Claim 1, Sharma teaches a system for instantiating persistent roaming for a mobile device (see system illustrated in at least figure 3), the system comprising: a memory that stores computer-executable instructions(see memory as outlined in 0031); and a processor (e.g., see processor outlined in 0031) that executes the computer-executable instructions that cause the processor to: receiving, at a provisioning engineering tool for managing mobile device provisioning and a plurality of Tracking Area Code (TAC) restriction tables, a request to update a provisioning profile associated with a user account, the user account associated with at least one mobile device, by adding at least one of the plurality of TAC restriction tables to the provisioning profile associated with the user account, each of the plurality of TAC restriction tables including a list of cellular sites in a geographical area(Examiner note: Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the request is implied or explicit based on the registration attempt or access attempt. The Applicant is invited the explicitly point out the request in the original disclosure for clarification. The Examiner was unable to find the explicit origination of the request in the original disclosure and therefore this limitation is being interpreted as best understood by the Examiner. The provisioning tool is interpreted as the infrastructure equipment 272 and/or 372 in figure 5. As outlined in 0137-0140 the AMF sends to the infrastructure equipment an eMRL (enhanced mobile restriction list) which is an update of the TAC restrictions (see TAC relationship to MRL in 0064 and 0140) that are provided the infrastructure equipment ); restrict the at least one mobile device associated with the user account from a home Mobile Network Operators (MNO) network when the at least one mobile device associated with the user account is in the geographical area associated with the listed cellular sites of the TAC restriction table in the provisioning profile(e.g., see at least 0141- “It will be appreciated that permissions indications may be in the form of a blacklist (i.e. there is no permission in respect of identities listed), a whitelist (there is permission only in respect of identities listed) or a combination of the two”. ); and enable the restricted at least one mobile device associated with the user account to begin roaming on a third party Mobile Network Operators (MNO) network(e.g., see at least 0141- “It will be appreciated that permissions indications may be in the form of a blacklist (i.e. there is no permission in respect of identities listed), a whitelist (there is permission only in respect of identities listed) or a combination of the two”. ).
Consider Claims 2 and 11, Sharma teaches the claimed invention further comprising: determining that one or more of the at least one mobile devices associated with user accounts are candidates for persistent roaming in one or more geographical areas, and adding the one or more of the at least one mobile devices associated with user accounts to the TAC restriction table (e.g., see 0161- this is accomplished based on “technique in which the eMRL 562 is provided to the first infrastructure equipment 272 permit the first infrastructure equipment 272 to determine whether the communications device 270 is permitted to access a candidate cell.”).
Consider Claims 7 and 16, Sharma teaches the claimed invention further comprising: enabling the user to be queried to determine their current connectivity state (e.g., the measurement report would allow the user to be queried to determine their connectivity state – see figure 5 process of measurement reporting).
Consider Claims 8 and 17, Sharma teaches wherein the prohibited services include one or more of voice and data services (see available services allowed and not allowed based on 0067).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARMA et. al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0303846 A1, hereinafter, ‘Sharma’ in view of Saghir et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2016/0157147 A1, hereinafter, “Saghir”.
Consider Claims 5 and 14, Saghir teaches the claimed invention except wherein the provisioning engineering tool includes multiple TAC restriction tables and each TAC restriction table contains up to 255 Tracking Area Codes.
However, Saghir teaches in 0003 “each cellular provider only has 65535 tracking area codes available”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to try as a matter of design choice to manage the number of TAC allocated for a design based on the limited pool of TAC as taught by Saghir.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARMA et. al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0303846 A1, hereinafter, ‘Sharma’ in view of Raval et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/0092795 A1, hereinafter, “Raval”.
Consider Claims 6 and 15, Sharma teaches the claimed invention except wherein the TAC restriction table individually identifies a user by International Mobile Subscriber Identifier (IMSI).
However, in analogous art, Raval teaches in at least 0004 a “UE identifier may be an international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI), The first filter may be a whitelist containing a plurality of IMSIs to be granted service or a blacklist containing a plurality of IMSIs to be denied service”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to try wherein the TAC restriction table individually identifies a user by International Mobile Subscriber Identifier (IMSI) for the purpose of filtering subscribers for access.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHARMA et. al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0303846 A1, hereinafter, ‘Sharma’ in view of Hathiramani et al. US Patent No.: A1, hereinafter, “Hathiramani”.
Consider Claims 9 and 18, Sharma teaches the claimed invention except wherein the restricting of the at least one mobile device associated with the user account from the home Mobile Network Operators (MNO) network further comprises rejecting a registration attempt of the at least one mobile device associated with the user account.
In analogous art, Hathiramani teaches the “UE shall update the suitable list whenever an ATTACH REJECT, TRACKING AREA UPDATE REJECT, SERVICE REJECT or DETACH REQUEST message is received” – col 9 lines 9-17.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sharma wherein the restricting of the at least one mobile device associated with the user account from the home Mobile Network Operators (MNO) network further comprises rejecting a registration attempt of the at least one mobile device associated with the user account as suggested by Hathiramani for the purpose of managing tracking areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 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.
The Closest prior art of record US 20240121699 A1, with respect to the claims noted above teaches how a subscriber profile update may work using shared data sets in an example implementation of restricting user UE access to certain cell sites in the network in accordance with embodiments described herein. In one example embodiment, in UDM/UDR, the system performs subscriber profile update serviceAreaRestriction or Forbidden AREAs, preferably to use Shared Data. Shared Data sets SharedAMData may be used. Shared Data with configured serviceAreaRestriction or Forbidden AREAs and TACs may be used. Subscribers may be configured with particular SharedAMData profile. However, the prior art of record does not teach : sending a payload of data to a Unified Data Repository (UDR) to force the at least one mobile device associated with the user account to attempt a registration process that launches the updated provisioning profile with the TAC restriction table and forcing the at least one mobile device associated with the user account, via a Unified Data Repository (UDR), to attempt a registration process further comprises losing Network Registration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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 D 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646