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 § 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 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puneet et al. (Patent No: US 2024/0414631 A1), hereinafter, Puneet, in view of MAYALIL et al. (Patent No: US 2025/0031141 A1), hereinafter, MAYALIL and further in view of Lin et al. (Patent No: 2024/0236824 A1), hereinafter, Lin.
Regarding Claim 1, Puneet teaches,
A wireless terminal comprising: reception circuitry configured to: receive an Allowed Closed Access Group (CAG) list, the Allowed CAG list comprising one or more first CAG identities (CAG-IDs), each of the one or more first CAG-IDs, -Fig. 13; Paragraph [0065, 0082] ([0065] recites, “A CAG cell broadcasts one or multiple CAG Identifiers per PLMN (113), and a UE is configured with CAG related configuration/information (e.g., an (enhanced) CAG information list containing list of allowed CAGs per PLMN) (702)” [0082] recites, “FIG. 13 is a flow chart of a method (process) for wireless communication of a UE. The method may be performed by a UE (e.g., UE 701 or UE 810). At operation 1310, the UE maintains a CAG information list including an entry. The UE supports enhanced CAG information. The entry includes an allowed CAG list associated with a current PLMN. The allowed CAG list includes one or more CAG IDs. “)
being associated with validity information, comprising at least one time duration for each of the one or more first CAG-IDs, in the Allowed CAG list, that is valid, -Paragraph [0070-0072] ([0070] recites, “CAG ID may be configured with time validity information to indicate the time criteria (e.g., an authorized time period). In this case, the CAG ID may be considered authorized when the time criteria indicated by the time validity information is met (e.g., a current time of the UE 810 matches with the authorized time period indicated by time validity information), and not authorized when the time criteria is no longer met (e.g., the current time does not match with the authorized time period)”).
and receive, from a cell, Paragraph [0065] ([0065] recites, “A CAG cell broadcasts one or multiple CAG Identifiers per PLMN (113), and a UE is configured with CAG related configuration/information (e.g., an (enhanced) CAG information list containing list of allowed CAGs per PLMN) (702).”)
Although implicit and understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art, Puneet does not explicitly mention,
system information comprising one or more second CAG-IDs broadcast on the cell;
However, in an analogous invention MAYALIL teaches,
system information comprising one or more second CAG-IDs broadcast on the cell; -Paragraph [0095]([0095] recites, “The Network 606 may provide the CAG info list 612 in system information block #1 (SIB #1) to UE 610.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “METHOD FOR HANDLING 5GMM PROCEDURE FOR CAG VALIDITY CHANGES BETWEEN MET AND NOT MET” proposed by Puneet to include the concept of “system information comprising one or more second CAG-IDs broadcast on the cell” of MAYALIL . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maximize spectral efficiency and improve the overall performance of the network [0075].
Although implicit, Puneet and MAYALIL combination do not explicitly mention,
and processing circuitry configured to: trigger a cell selection procedure in a case that the one or more second CAG- IDs broadcast on the cell become invalid based on the Allowed CAG list and the validity information.
However, in an analogous invention, Lin teaches,
and processing circuitry configured to: trigger a cell selection procedure in a case that the one or more second CAG- IDs broadcast on the cell become invalid based on the Allowed CAG list and the validity information. -Paragraph [0007-0008] ([0007] recites, “The UE accesses the current PLMN via a current CAG cell supporting the first CAG ID when the first CAG ID is determined as being authorized during the first time period based on the allowed CAG list. After the first time period of the first CAG ID, the UE determines that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list. The UE determines whether the UE is configured to perform at least one of a plurality of actions, including: (1) entering a state REGISTERED.LIMITED-SERVICE and searching for a suitable cell, (2) entering a state REGISTERED.PLMN-SEARCH and applying a PLMN selection process, and (3) performing a local release of all packet data units (PDUs) or packet sessions associated with 3GPP access except for an emergency PDU or packet session and entering the state REGISTERED.LIMITED-SERVICE.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “METHOD FOR HANDLING 5GMM PROCEDURE FOR CAG VALIDITY CHANGES BETWEEN MET AND NOT MET” proposed by Puneet to include the concept of “trigger a cell selection procedure in a case that the one or more second CAG- IDs broadcast on the cell become invalid based on the Allowed CAG list and the validity information.” of Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to boost coverage to and/or increase capacity of the access network [0030].
Claim 7 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1 which is rejected above. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights