DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on 03/16/2026 and Information Disclosure Statements filed on 04 November 2023 and 19 December 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been entered. The claims have been amended, and original as follows. Original claims 16, and 20. Currently amended 1-15, 17-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see, filed on 03/16/2026. Remarks pages 11-13, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 under Starsinic et al. (US 20240007878 A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US 20240224215 A1).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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Starsinic et al. (US 20240007878 A1) in view of Roy et al. (US 20240236833 A1) in further view Hernandez et al. (US 20180091962 A1). Applicant arguing that Starsinic, Kumar, Roy do not disclose in response to determination that none of the one or more approved terrestrial network are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. Examiner response is Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) non- emergency wireless communication service encompasses any routine commercial voice, data, or SMS session that is not restricted to emergency-only dispatch. Hernandez explicitly distinguishes between emergency calls and non-emergency call context See FIG. 9 and ¶[0045-[0046], [0068]-[0073]. As demonstrated above, Hernandez discloses elements of the amended claims.
The rejection is maintained based on the combination of Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez renders the amended claims obvious. Starsinic teaches scenario where approved terrestrial network are unavailable, a UE determines there are no allowable PLMNs, it purges specific PLMNs from forbidden list ¶[0140], [0106]. Roy teaches PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location ¶[0020]-[0026], [0107]-[0108]. Kumar teaches NTN Blacklist management. See ¶[0008], [0099], [0020]-[0026], [0116]. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic et al. (US 20240007878 A1) in view of Roy et al. (US 20240236833 A1) in further view Hernandez et al. (US 20180091962 A1). With regarding Claim 1 Starsinic disclose a system comprising: at least one hardware processor; and at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the system to: (See FIG. 1, 3D-3G and ¶[0004], [0140], [0154], [0285], [0306]-[0307], [0318], [0322]. Disclosed computer-executable instructions stored in a memory of and executing on a processor showed as in FIG. 3G): determine that none of one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide a non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. ¶[0088], [0139]-[0140], [0143], [0106], [0074].) [0088] The UE may alternatively, or additionally, determine that there is a disaster situation. For example, the UE may detect that it can select no suitable PLMN other than forbidden PLMNs.[0140] When in automatic PLMN selection mode, the UE may determine that there are no Allowable PLMNs that are not in disaster mode. Once the UE makes this determination. Disclosed UE determines it can select no suitable PLMN other than forbidden PLMNs ¶[0088] disclosed may determine that there are no Allowable PLMNs that are not in disaster mode. ), wherein the one or more approved terrestrial networks include a home terrestrial network to which the system is subscribed or one or more roaming terrestrial networks partnered with the home terrestrial network to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. ¶[0050]-[0055], [0025]. Disclosed that their subscribers can use each other’s network) [0054] PLMN A will begin to serve PLMN B's subscribers. Note that PLMN B subscribers might include PLMN A in their list of forbidden PLMNs, but such forbidden list may be overwritten or bypassed in case of a disaster). Starsinic may not explicitly disclose in response to the determination that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service, remove a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) code of a satellite network from a Forbidden PLMN(FPLMN} list, wherein a first satellite network is identified as the satellite network; However, in analogous art, Roy disclose in response to the determination that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service, remove a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) code of a satellite network from a Forbidden PLMN(FPLMN} list, wherein a first satellite network is identified as the satellite network (See FIG. 5A-5D, 10 and ¶[0007], [0019]-[0026], [0059]-[0063], [0119]-[0135], [0135], [0222]. Disclosed maintain a list of PLMN not allowed to operate at the present UE location for satellite/NTN PLMNs, with explicit removal conditions, I). successful registration II). Time expiry III). Location change beyond stored geographical area. And identifying of NTN vs TN using. i). Configured NAS/AS timer thresholds, II). Timing advance values. III). Round trip broadcast SIB/MIB network type indicators).[0222] In an embodiment, each entry shall be removed if for the entry: the UE 202 successfully registers via satellite NG-RAN access technology or the satellite E-UTRAN access technology to the PLMN stored in the entry.[0059] In accordance with another aspect of the disclosure, a method and a system for handling of emergency services when PLMN is not allowed to operate at the present UE location, are provided. A UE attempts registration (e.g., for emergency services) on the first PLMN through a non-terrestrial network such as satellite NG-RAN access technology or satellite E-UTRAN access technology. The UE may receive a rejection message cause value #78 “PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location”. Upon receiving the rejection message for registration, the UE attempts registration (e.g., for normal services) on a second PLMN through the non-terrestrial network. Upon receiving the rejection message, the UE maintains a list of “PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location” in which it stores the PLMN ID of the rejecting PLMNs (PLMN-1, PLMN-2), the current geographical location and a timer.[0222] In an embodiment, each entry shall be removed if for the entry: the UE 202 successfully registers via satellite NG-RAN access technology or the satellite E-UTRAN access technology to the PLMN stored in the entry; the timer instance associated with the entry expires; or if the current UE location is known, a geographical location is stored for the entry of this PLMN, and the distance to the current UE location is larger than a UE implementation specific value.).and Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose initiate a first wireless access request to the first satellite network, wherein the first wireless access request requests for the first satellite network to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service to the system. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose initiate a first wireless access request to the first satellite network, wherein the first wireless access request requests for the first satellite network to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service to the system (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.)
[0046] If a call other than an emergency call is in progress, then at block 308, process 300 can perform a standard call logic algorithm to select an operating state for communication interface 208. In some embodiments, the standard call logic algorithm may simply select or maintain the cell-favored operating state, on the assumption that during a non-emergency call, the user does not need precise location information.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez to modify Roy and Starsinic. Starsinic teaches the trigger and FPLMN mechanism TN/home network unavailability to purges/removes PLMN codes from FPLMN list and attempts registration for normal services. Roy teaches identifies NTN vs TN, manages NTN-specific forbidden lists, and initiates normal service registration over satellite access. Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. This combination address the service continuity in coverage gaps while ensuring that fallback to satellite networks is appropriately scoped to non-emergency communications, consistent with user expectations and network resource management.
With regarding Claim 4 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic, and Hernandez may not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive a first PLMN code of the satellite network; in response to reception of the first PLMN code of the satellite network, determine that the first PLMN code is associated with the satellite network; and in response to the determination that the first PLMN code is associated with the satellite network, determine that none of the one or more approved network are available to provide the wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive a the PLMN code of the first satellite network (See FIG. 3-4, and ¶[0111],[0119]. Disclosed the UE performing scans to receive and identify PLMN selection procedure in the network coverage area, including satellite PLMNs like Sx-1.); in response to reception of the PLMN code of the first satellite network, determine that the PLMN code of the first satellite network is associated with the first satellite network (See FIG. 5A-5D and ¶[0120], [0127]-[0129], [0131]-[0132]. Disclosed methods for determining that a received PLMN code is associated with satellite /non-terrestrial network, using parameters like timing advance values and around trip time measurements ); and in response to the determination that the PLMN code of the first satellite network is associated with the satellite network, determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. (See FIG. 13A and ¶[0185]-[0187]. Disclosed that the user may not see the PLMNs which belong to the non-terrestrial network, there is no available approved networks).
Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine to combine Hernandez to modify Roy and Starsinic. Starsinic teaches the UE determines when no allowable PLMNs are available during network selection procedures. And Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. Roy teaches receiving PLMN codes and degerming whether they are associated with satellite networks using various technical parameters, also teaches non-terrestrial networks are only considered when no terrestrial networks are available. This combination ensure that when satellite PLMN is identified, the UE determines that no approved/allowable terrestrial networks are available.
With regarding Claim 5 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive one or more PLMN codes associated with one or more mobile networks (See ¶[0099]-[0100], [0109]. Disclosed UE receiving PLMN codes during the PLMN selection process from available mobile networks. The UE must receive and evaluate PLMN identifiers from broadcast signals to perform this selection process.); Starsinic may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with the home terrestrial network; in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with the home terrestrial network, determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more roaming terrestrial networks; and in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with the home terrestrial network or any of the one or more roaming terrestrial networks, determine that none of the one or more approved networks are available to provide the wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with the home terrestrial network (See FIG. 5C-6, and ¶[0136]-[0137], [0127]. Disclosed the UE determining network type(terrestrial vs. non-terrestrial) and identifying whether any PLMNs correspond to the home terrestrial network. ); in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with the home terrestrial network, determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more roaming terrestrial networks (See FIG. 7 and ¶[0139]-[0140]. Disclosed the sequential determination process where the UE first checks for home networks, then roaming networks, and ultimately determines that no terrestrial networks (home or roaming) are available.); and in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with the home terrestrial network or any of the one or more roaming terrestrial networks, determine that none of the one or more approved networks are available to provide the wireless communication service (See FIG. 7 and ¶[0139]-[0140]. Disclosed the sequential determination process where the UE first checks for home networks, then roaming networks, and ultimately determines that no terrestrial networks (home or roaming) are available.).
Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service.
However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roy to modify Starsinic and Hernandez teachings. Starsinic teaches the sequential PLMN selection process where the UE first checks for HPLMN, then EHPLMN before considering other options. Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. And Roy teaches the UE receiving PLMN codes, determining network types(terrestrial VS. non-terrestrial), and sequentially determining availability of home and roaming networks. This combination yields power-efficient, PLMN selection behaviors. With regarding Claim 7 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive an indication that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. 1 and ¶[0070], [0083]-[0085]. Disclosed the UE receiving an indication (Disaster information) that a PLMN (which would be an approved network) is not available to provide service); and in response to the reception of the indication that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service, determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. (See FIG. 3a and ¶[0072], [0086]-[0088], [0140]. Disclosed UE determining that no approved networks are available (only forbidden PLMNs remain after receiving or detecting indications a bout network availability)). Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service.(See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez to modify Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches a system where a UE receives indications about network availability status, and in response to these indications determines whether approved networks are available for service. The UE can receive disaster information from networks or other sources, and based on this information, determine that no allowable PLMNs are available to provide service, necessitating connection to alternative networks.
With regarding Claim 8 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive one or more PLMN codes associated with one or more mobile networks (See ¶[0099]-[0100], [0109]. Disclosed UE receiving PLMN codes during the PLMN selection process from available mobile networks. The UE must receive and evaluate PLMN identifiers from broadcast signals to perform this selection process.); Starsinic may not explicitly disclose determine that at least one of the one or more PLMN codes is associated with a first network of the one or more approved networks; determine that the first network is available to provide a limited wireless communication service that has less capability than the wireless communication service; and in response to the determination that the first network is available to provide the limited wireless communication service, determine that none of the one or more approved networks are available to provide the wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose determine that at least one of the one or more PLMN codes is associated with a first network of the one or more approved networks (See ¶[0136], [0111], [0118]. Disclosed the UE determining which PLMNs are associated with approved networks (in this case, terrestrial networks like rx-1 which would be considered approved networks.)); determine that the first network is available to provide a limited wireless communication service that has less capability than the wireless communication service (See ¶[0199]-[0200]. Disclosed determining when a network provides limited services (in this case emergency services only)); and in response to the determination that the first network is available to provide the limited wireless communication service, determine that none of the one or more approved networks are available to provide the wireless communication service (See ¶[0194]-[0195].Disclosed determining that when available networks only provide limited services(emergency only), the UE should consider other options including non-terrestrial networks.). Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez to modify Roy and Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches how the UE determines when approved networks are effectively unavailable due to limited service capabilities, Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. And Roy teaches the UE receiving PLMN codes, identifying approved networks, and determining service limitations. This combinations ensure UE receiving PLMN codes , identifying approved networks, and determining service limitations.
With regarding Claim 9, Starsinic at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (See FIG. 3A and ¶[0075]),, which, when executed by at least one data processor of a system (See ¶[0082]), cause the system to (See FIG. 3D-3G and ¶[0004], [0285], [0306]-[0307], [0318], [0322]. Disclosed computer-executable instructions stored in a memory of and executing on a processor showed as in FIG. 3G): determine that no approved terrestrial network is available to provide a non-emergency wireless communication service (See and ¶[0004], [0072], [0139]-[0140]. Disclosed there are no allowable PLMNs that are not in disaster mode.); and in in response to the determination that no approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service, remove the network information of [[the]] a satellite network from a mobile network blacklist (See and ¶[0004], [0072], [0106], [0139]-[0140], [0143], [0154], [0169], [0226]. [0106] Reception of the message may cause the UE to do a number of things. First, the UE may purge its Forbidden PLMN list or remove specific PLMNs (e.g., the PLMNs that were indicated in the received message) from its forbidden list. Alternatively, the UE may have been previously configured with PLMN IDs that should immediately be purged from the UE's forbidden list in the event of a disaster. The UE may choose to not purge its Forbidden PLMN until it enters the indicated location.Disclosed the concept of no Allowable PLMN as none of the one or more approved network are available. This teaches that when this condition is met, the UE prioritizes previously forbidden PLMN for connection.); Starsinic may not explicitly disclose ,wherein the satellite network is a first satellite network, and wherein the removal of the information indicative network information of the first satellite network from the mobile network blacklist enables the system to initiate a first wireless access request to the first satellite network. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose wherein the satellite network is a first satellite network, and wherein the removal of the information indicative network information of the first satellite network from the mobile network blacklist enables the system to initiate a first wireless access request to the first satellite network (See FIG. 15, and ¶[0007], [0015], [0107]-[0108], [0020]-[0026], [0213], [0222]. Disclosed once NTN PLMN us removed from the not allowed list or conditions clear, UE initiates registration request or service request via NAS/AS signaling to satellite network to obtain normal services.). Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that no approved terrestrial network is available to provide a non-emergency wireless communication service; However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that no approved terrestrial network is available to provide a non-emergency wireless communication service(See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.); Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez to modify Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches UE maintains an allowable PLMN set and forbidden PLMN list and when it can select no Allowable PLMN, it uses PLMNs from the forbidden list for roaming, thereby changing a previously forbidden PLMN into a candidate for access. Roy teaches once NTN PLMN entries are moved or conditions permit, the UE initiates a first wireless access request to the satellite network to obtain normal service, Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. This combination provides a implementation techniques for satellite network access control by using the “no allowable PLMN” determination to trigger removal from forbidden list.
With regarding Claim 10 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, Starsinic may not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: in response to removal of the information indicative of the first satellite network from the mobile network blacklist, transmit a request to receive respective broadcast information for one or more respective mobile networks, wherein the one or more respective mobile networks include the first satellite network, and wherein the system will initiate the first wireless access request to the first satellite network in response to receiving the respective broadcast information from the first satellite network. However, in analogous art, Roy wherein the instructions further cause the system to: in response to removal of the information indicative of the first satellite network from the mobile network blacklist, transmit a request to receive respective broadcast information for one or more respective mobile networks, wherein the one or more respective mobile networks include the first satellite network, and wherein the system will initiate the first wireless access request to the first satellite network in response to receiving the respective broadcast information from the first satellite network (See FIG. 3, 15 and ¶[0022]-[0025], [0108]-[0111], [0133]-[0135], [0213]. Disclosed removal of an entry from PLMN not allowed list same as black list, the UE triggers PLMN selection. UE’s identify or scans and detects PLMNs including NTN/satellite networks, the UE’s initiates a wireless access request(attempts to obtain service through any AS or NAS signaling message e.g., registration request or service request) to satellite network.). Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that no approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that no approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez to modify Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches the registration process after network selection. Roy teaches post blocklist removal scanning/broadcast requesting and NTN registration trigger mechanics into Starsinic’s disaster triggered forbidden list purge framework. Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. This combination ensure blacklist handling with known PLMN scan/selection/registration procedures including satellite PLMNs. With regarding Claim 12, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 4, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 13, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 5, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
With regarding Claim 14, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 7, and is rejected under the same reasoning. With regarding Claim 15, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 8, and is rejected under the same reasoning. With regarding Claim 16 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, Starsinic and Hernandez may not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is located on a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose wherein the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is located on a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card (See ¶[0099]-[0100]. Disclosed storing network lists on the SIM card.);. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roy to modify Starsinic and Hernandez teachings. Starsinic teaches that a network may transmit a notification to the UE indicating that a disaster condition has ended or that an allowable PLMN is available, Roy teaches User controlled PLMN selector with access technology data file in the SIM.This combination ensure that the PLMN access technology combinations are stored in SIM.
With regarding Claim 17 Starsinic disclosed at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, which, when executed by at least one data processor of a system, cause the system to (See FIG. 3D-3G and ¶[0004], [0285], [0306]-[0307], [0318], [0321]-[0322]. Disclosed RAM, ROM. Storing computer executable instructions that, when executed by processor) determine that a first approved terrestrial network is available to provide a non-emergency wireless communication service (See ¶[0008], [0204]-[0210], [0239]-[0241], [0106], [0216]-[0217]. UE detects that a disaster condition is over, detects that an allowable/home terrestrial PLMN is no longer broadcasting a disaster indication, and determines the approved TN is available again to resume normal service.); and, Starsinic may not explicitly disclose in response to the determination that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service; add, to a mobile network blacklist, information indicative of a satellite network to a mobile network blacklist, wherein the system is prevented from initiating a wireless access request to a mobile network indicated within the mobile network blacklist. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose in response to the determination that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service; add, to a mobile network blacklist, information indicative of a satellite network to a mobile network blacklist, wherein the system is prevented from initiating a wireless access request to a mobile network indicated within the mobile network blacklist (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0107]-[0108], [0019]-[0026], [0222], [0020]-[0023]. Disclosed continuously monitors coverage and determines that a terrestrial network has become available, explicitly prioritizing TN over NTN upon detection, maintaining a list of PLMNs not allowed to operate at present UE location, adding PLMN IDs, geographical locations, and timers to this list when conditions changes. And that the UE shall not attempts to access a PLMN through the non-terrestrial network access technology from the list of PLMNs not allowed). Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose in response to the determination that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose in response to the determination that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service(See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez to modify Roy and Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches UE maintains an allowable PLMN set and forbidden PLMN list and when it can select no Allowable PLMN, it uses PLMNs from the forbidden list for roaming, thereby changing a previously forbidden PLMN into a candidate for access [0072], [0204]. Roy teaches satellite specific blacklist addition mechanics into Starsinic’s TN recovery and service resumption. Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. This combination ensure UE performing PLMN selection and registration procedures to switch to alternate networks. With regarding Claim 18 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, Starsinic and Hernandez may not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to, in response to the determination that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, disconnect from the satellite network. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to, in response to the determination that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, disconnect from the satellite network (See ¶[0185] Disclosed prioritizing terrestrial networks over satellite networks when terrestrial networks become available, but does not explicitly teach the disconnect operation from the satellite network.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roy to modify Starsinic and Hernandez teachings. Starsinic that the when a UE determines that a preferred allowable PLMN becomes available or that a disaster condition has ended, the UE de-registers from currently used PLMN and connects to the preferred PLMN [0077-0079], and Roy teaches that when both terrestrial and non-terrestrial PLMNs are available, the UE prioritizes and camps on a terrestrial PLMN over a non-terrestrial PLMN whenever the terrestrial group becomes available in coverage area. This combination ensure when UE determines that a first approved terrestrial PLMN becomes available while the UE is connected to a satellite/non-terrestrial PLMN, to de-register from the satellite PLMN and connect to the approved terrestrial PLMN in order to obtain preferred terrestrial service. With regarding Claim 19 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive an indication that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service; and in response to the reception of the indication that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, determine that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service. Starsinic may not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive an indication that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service; and in response to the reception of the indication that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, determine that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Roy disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive an indication that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service (See ¶[0133]-[0134]. Disclosed receiving broadcasted information or signaling messages that indicate network types and availability, which the UE uses to make decisions about which network to select); and in response to the reception of the indication that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, determine that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service (See ¶[0136] Disclosed determining network types (terrestrial vs. non-terrestrial) base on the receiving information.). Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that the first approved terrestrial network is available to provide the non-emergency wireless communication service (See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Roy to modify Starsinic and Hernandez teachings. Starsinic teaches that a network may transmit a notification to the UE indicating that a disaster condition has ended or that an allowable PLMN is available, Roy teaches determining network types based on received information. This combination ensure the approved terrestrial network is available Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system. This combination ensure when UE determines that a first approved terrestrial PLMN becomes available while the UE is connected to a satellite/non-terrestrial PLMN, to de-register from the satellite PLMN and connect to the approved terrestrial PLMN in order to obtain preferred terrestrial service
9. Claims 2-3, 6, 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic, Roy, and Hernandez as applied to claims 1/9 above and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 20240224215 A1). With regarding Claim 2 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: in response to initiation of the first wireless access request, connect to the first satellite network such that the wireless communication service is provided through the satellite network (See ¶[0074], [0174]-[0176], [0008], [0204]-[0210], [0239]-[0241], [0106], [0216]-[0217], [205], [0240]. Disclosed UE sends a registration/access request to a forbidden/disaster PLMN, registers successfully, and obtains services, including PDU session, SMS, Voice, and data. These are standard commercial (non-emergency) services.); Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose after connecting to the satellite network, determine that an approved terrestrial network from the one or more approved networks is available to provide the wireless communication service; in response to the determination that the approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, add the PLMN code of the satellite network to the FPLMN list; and initiate a second wireless access request to the approved terrestrial network, wherein the second wireless access request requests for the approved terrestrial network to provide the wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Kumar disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: in response to initiation of the first wireless access request, connect to the satellite network such that the wireless communication service is provided through the satellite network (See FIG . 7C, 10 and ¶[0020],[0052]-[0055], [0058]-[0059], [0111]. Disclosed UE initiates a registration to a PLMN over satellite and if accepted, the UE is connected and communication is carried via that PLMN); after connecting to the satellite network, determine that an approved terrestrial network from the one or more approved networks is available to provide the wireless communication service (See FIG 7B, 9, and ¶[0079], [0092]-[0096], [0119]. Disclosed prioritizing PLMN B over the PLMN C as terrestrial vs satellite or approved vs unapproved.); in response to the determination that the approved terrestrial network is available to provide the wireless communication service, add the PLMN code of the satellite network to the FPLMN list;(See FIG 10, and ¶[0116], [0052]-[0053]. Disclosed UE may add the corresponding PLMN list to a FPLMN); and initiate a second wireless access request to the approved terrestrial network, wherein the second wireless access request requests for the approved terrestrial network to provide the wireless communication service. (See FIG 8A, and ¶[0111]. Disclosed UE sends registration request to PLMN A after failing on PLMN D; PLMN A responds with registration accept, this is a second wireless access request). Starsinic, Roy and Kumar may not explicitly disclose connect to the first satellite network such that the non-emergency wireless communication service is provided through the first satellite network. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose connect to the first satellite network such that the non-emergency wireless communication service is provided through the first satellite network (See FIG 9, and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]). Disclosed distinguishes between emergency calls and non-emergency call contexts. Fig. 9 illustrates UE logic that activates specifically for routine commercial communications.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hernandez, Kumar and Roy to modify Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches UE maintains an allowable PLMN set and forbidden PLMN list and when it can select no Allowable PLMN, it uses PLMNs from the forbidden list for roaming, thereby changing a previously forbidden PLMN into a candidate for access [0072], [0204]. Kumar teaching in a satellite communication system, storing PLMN identifiers in a not allowed/forbidden per-location list so adding PLMNs to FPLMN lists based on location-specific restrictions. Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. This combination ensure UE performing PLMN selection and registration procedures to switch to alternate networks. With regarding Claim 3 Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive one or more PLMN codes associated with one or more mobile networks (See ¶[0099]-[0100], [0109]. Disclosed UE receiving PLMN codes during the PLMN selection process from available mobile networks. The UE must receive and evaluate PLMN identifiers from broadcast signals to perform this selection process.); determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved networks; and in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved networks, determine that none of the one or more approved network are available to provide the wireless communication service (See FIG. 1, and ¶[0004], [0025], [0030], [0154], [0226], [0084], [0072]. Disclosed UE determining that no allowable/approved PLMNs are available after performing PLMN selection.). Starsinic may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved networks; However, in analogous art, Kumar disclose determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved networks (See FIG. 5 and ¶[0017],[0055]. Disclosed IE determine whether a PLMN is allowed or forbidden based on geographical criteria, effectively determine that a geographical area.); and Starsinic, Roy and Kumar may not explicitly determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non- emergency wireless communication service. However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose connect to the first satellite network such that the non-emergency wireless communication service is provided through the first satellite network (See FIG 9, and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]). Disclosed distinguishes between emergency calls and non-emergency call contexts. Fig. 9 illustrates UE logic that activates specifically for routine commercial communications.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kumar to modify Starsinic teachings. Starsinic teaches the UE scanning for and receiving PLMN codes during network selection , and determining when no allowable PLMNs are available. Kumar teaching how UE determining whether PLMNs are approved or forbidden based on geographical area and other criteria, and how it handles the determination that networks are unavailable Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly. This combination ensure the none of the received PLMN codes are associated with approved networks, determine no approved network is available. With regarding Claim 6, Starsinic, Roy and Hernandez disclosed the system of claim 1, Starsinic disclosed wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive a first PLMN code of a first non-partner terrestrial network that is not partnered with the home terrestrial network; in response to reception of the first PLMN code of the first non-partner terrestrial network, determine that the first PLMN code is not associated with any of the one or more approved networks (See and ¶[0017], [0059]. Disclosed receiving PLMN codes of networks that are not allowed to be used by the UE. A “PLMN not allowed” would include non-partner networks that are not partnered with the home network, and UE receiving messages (which would contain PLMN codes) in response to attempting procedures on networks.); and determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved terrestrial networks; and in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved terrestrial networks, determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non- emergency wireless communication service.. Starsinic and Roy may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved terrestrial networks; and in response to the determination that none of the one or more PLMN codes are associated with any of the one or more approved terrestrial networks, determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non- emergency wireless communication service.. However, in analogous art, Kumar disclose wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive a first PLMN code of a first non-partner terrestrial network that is not partnered with the home terrestrial network (See and ¶[0017], [0059]. Receiving PLMN codes of networks that are not allowed to be used by the UE. A “PLMN not allowed” would include non-partner networks that are not partnered with the home network. The UE receiving messages (which would contain PLMN codes) in response to attempting procedures on networks.); in response to the determination that the first PLMN code of the first non-partner terrestrial network is not associated with any of the one or more approved networks, determine that none of the one or more approved networks are available to provide the wireless communication service (See and ¶[0055]. Disclosed UE determining that a particular PLMN (Which could be a non-partner network) is not available for device in the current location), leading the UE to perform further PLMN selection to find networks that will provide service. Starsinic, Roy and Kumar may not explicitly disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non- emergency wireless communication service.
However, in analogous art, Hernandez disclose determine that none of the one or more approved terrestrial networks are available to provide the non- emergency wireless communication service(See FIG. 3, 9 and ¶[0045]-[0047], [0068]-[0073]. Disclosed distinction between emergency calls (step 310/308), and 904, for non-emergency call may be defined as a call placed to an emergency dispatch system such as 911 or the 112. Fig. 3 explains cellular module active if No perform GNSS enhancement logic.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kumar to modify Starsinic teachings. Starsinic complements this but teaching the UE’s determination process when no allowable/approved PLMNs are available during network selection. Kumar disclosed receiving PLMN codes of non-approved networks and determining they are not approved networks. Hernandez teaches distinguishing between emergency wireless communication services and non-emergency wireless communication services and managing system behavior accordingly.This combination ensure UE receives only such non-partner terrestrial PLMN codes and finds none matching it’s approved PLMN set, to determine that those PLMNs are not associated with any approved network and that none of the approved networks are available to provide the wireless service. With regarding Claim 11, through of a different scope, the limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar or identical to those of claim 3, and is rejected under the same reasoning.
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 SHIVAKRISHNA VALLAMDASU whose telephone number is (571)272-5249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Smith, Marcus R. can be reached on (571) 270-1096. 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.
/SHIVAKRISHNA VALLAMDASU/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights