DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 1/20/26.
Claim(s) 1, 12 & 18 was/were amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for examination.
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2015/0282044 A1 in view of Watfa, US 2022/0264403 A1.
As to claim 1, Balasubramanian teaches a method for managing inter-radio access technology (inter-RAT) capability of a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving system information broadcasted from a public land mobile network (PLMN), and the UE is currently camps on a first RAT of the PLMN (Balasubramanian, page 3, paragraph 33-34; page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [0033] one node may obtain a first signal quality for a first radio access technology (RAT) with a higher priority compared to a second RAT; while another node may obtain a second signal quality for the second RAT with the lower priority. Use signal quality measurements from both the first RAT and the second RAT in making a system selection decision; [0074] determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752)); and
in response to receiving the system information, performing a PLMN search operation to camp on a second RAT of the PLMN, and performing an inter-RAT management operation to prevent the UE from transiting to the first RAT of the PLMN (Balasubramanian, page 3, paragraph 33-34; page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [0074] determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752). In further instances, switching from the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48) to another RAT ( e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752) comprises one or more of disabling the current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748), preventing a timing association of an associated Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48), and forbidding a PLMN identification (ID) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 748). In certain aspects, switching RATs may comprise one or more of disabling LTE, preventing a tracking area of an associated Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network (EHPLMN) or (HPLMN));
the UE camps on the second RAT of the PLMN, and does not transit from the second RAT of the PLMN to the first RAT of the PLMN (Balasubramanian, page 3, paragraph 33-34; page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [0074] determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752). In further instances, switching from the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48) to another RAT ( e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752) comprises one or more of disabling the current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748), preventing a timing association of an associated Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48), and forbidding a PLMN identification (ID) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 748). In certain aspects, switching RATs may comprise one or more of disabling LTE, preventing a tracking area of an associated Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network (EHPLMN) or (HPLMN)).
But Balasubramanian failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the system information is indicative of a disaster condition of the PLMN; wherein before the disaster condition of the PLMN, the UE camps on the first RAT of the PLMN, and during the disaster condition of the PLMN, the UE camps on the second RAT of the PLMN, and does not transit from the second RAT of the PLMN to the first RAT of the PLMN .
However, Watfa teaches the limitation wherein the system information is indicative of a disaster condition of the PLMN (Watfa, page 6, paragraph 97; i.e., [0097] If the UE is accessing the SGC over NR, and the PLMN which is providing inbound disaster roaming service is only allowed to provide service to the UE via NR (e.g., based on subscription or local policies)); wherein before the disaster condition of the PLMN, the UE camps on the first RAT of the PLMN, and during the disaster condition of the PLMN, does not transit from the second RAT of the PLMN to the first RAT of the PLMN (Watfa, page 6, paragraph 97; i.e., [0097] If the UE is accessing the SGC over NR, and the PLMN which is providing inbound disaster roaming service is only allowed to provide service to the UE via NR (e.g., based on subscription or local policies), the AMF may also indicate to the RAN (using the appropriate information element) that E-UTRA(N) is a forbidden RAT for the UE in question. The AMF may indicate this using the 'RAT Restriction Information' component of the 'RAT Restrictions' information element of the Mobility Restriction List IE that is defined in TS 38.413).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian to substitute massive MachineType Communications (mMTC), from Watfa for UMTS from Balasubramanian to have implementing services at levels of complexity exceeding the limit of UE operation capability by utilizing ultra-high performance communication and computing resources (Watfa, page 1, paragraph 8).
As to claim 18, Balasubramanian teaches a method for managing inter-radio access technology (inter-RAT) capability of a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving system information broadcasted from a first public land mobile network (PLMN), and the UE is currently camps on a first RAT of the first PLMN (Balasubramanian, page 3, paragraph 33-34; page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [0074] determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752). In further instances, switching from the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48) to another RAT ( e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752) comprises one or more of disabling the current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748), preventing a timing association of an associated Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48), and forbidding a PLMN identification (ID) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 748). In certain aspects, switching RATs may comprise one or more of disabling LTE, preventing a tracking area of an associated Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network (EHPLMN) or (HPLMN)); and
in response to receiving the system information, performing a PLMN search operation to camp on the first RAT of a second PLMN, and performing an inter-RAT management operation to prevent the UE from transiting to a second RAT of the second PLMN (Balasubramanian, page 3, paragraph 33-34; page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [007 4] determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752). In further instances, switching from the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48) to another RAT ( e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752) comprises one or more of disabling the current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748), preventing a timing association of an associated Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48), and forbidding a PLMN identification (ID) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 748). In certain aspects, switching RATs may comprise one or more of disabling LTE, preventing a tracking area of an associated Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network (EHPLMN) or (HPLMN)).
But Balasubramanian failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the system information is indicative of a disaster condition of the first PLMN; the first RAT is a New Radio (NR) system, and the inter-RAT management operation is performed at an access-stratum (AS) level; wherein before the disaster condition of the first PLMN, the UE camps on the first RAT of the first PLMN, and during the disaster condition of the first PLMN, the UE camps on the first RAT of the second PLMN, and does not transit from the first RAT of the second PLMN to the second RAT of the second PLMN.
However, Watfa teaches the limitation wherein the system information is indicative of a disaster condition of the PLMN (Watfa, page 6, paragraph 97; i.e., [0097] If the UE is accessing the SGC over NR, and the PLMN which is providing inbound disaster roaming service is only allowed to provide service to the UE via NR (e.g., based on subscription or local policies)); wherein before the disaster condition of the PLMN, the UE camps on the first RAT of the PLMN, and during the disaster condition of the PLMN, does not transit from the second RAT of the PLMN to the first RAT of the PLMN (Watfa, page 6, paragraph 97; i.e., [0097] If the UE is accessing the SGC over NR, and the PLMN which is providing inbound disaster roaming service is only allowed to provide service to the UE via NR (e.g., based on subscription or local policies), the AMF may also indicate to the RAN (using the appropriate information element) that E-UTRA(N) is a forbidden RAT for the UE in question. The AMF may indicate this using the 'RAT Restriction Information' component of the 'RAT Restrictions' information element of the Mobility Restriction List IE that is defined in TS 38.413).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian to substitute massive MachineType Communications (mMTC), from Watfa for UMTS from Balasubramanian to have implementing services at levels of complexity exceeding the limit of UE operation capability by utilizing ultra-high performance communication and computing resources (Watfa, page 1, paragraph 8).
As to claim 19, Balasubramanian-Watfa teaches the method as recited in claim 18, wherein not performing reselection of the second RAT in the second PLMN by the UE (Balasubramanian, page 3, paragraph 33-34; page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [0034] the set of nodes may determine whether to switch from their current RAT to another RAT; [007 4] determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752). In further instances, switching from the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48) to another RAT ( e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752) comprises one or more of disabling the current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748), preventing a timing association of an associated Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48), and forbidding a PLMN identification (ID) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 748). In certain aspects, switching RATs may comprise one or more of disabling LTE, preventing a tracking area of an associated Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network (EHPLMN) or (HPLMN)).
Claim(s) 12 & 18 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 12 & 18 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 11 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2015/0282044 A1 in view of Watfa, US 2022/0264403 A1, and further in view of Bhowmik, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. WO 2022/149846.
As to claim 11, Balasubramanian-Watfa teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Balasubramanian-Watfa failed to teach the claim limitation wherein in response to receiving the system information, periodically checking if the disaster condition of the PLMN has ended.
However, Bhowmik teaches the limitation wherein in response to receiving the system information, periodically checking if the disaster condition of the PLMN has ended (Bhowmik, page 12, paragraph 68; i.e., [0068] periodic registration update in which case Registration Type value can be called as disaster roaming mobility registration updating. The UE (100) is configured to camp on the second PLMN (200b) for the disaster roaming service during the disaster condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa to substitute CoMP from Bhowmik for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa to have a better control of its UEs in order to determine if they have to receive disaster roaming service (Bhowmik, page 2, paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 17 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 11. Therefore, claim(s) 17 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 11.
Claim(s) 2 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2015/0282044 A1 in view of Watfa, US 2022/0264403 A1, and further in view of JHA, CN 112425252 A.
As to claim 2, Balasubramanian-Watfa teaches the method as recited in claim 1. But Balasubramanian-Watfa failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the first RAT is a New Radio (NR) system.
However, JHA teaches the limitation wherein the first RAT is a New Radio (NR) system (JHA, page 6, paragraph 16; i.e., [0016] an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network New Radio – Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) capable User Equipment (UE), the UE comprising at least two transceivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa to substitute CoMP from JHA for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa to reduce the propagation loss of radio waves and increase the transmission distance (JHA, page 2, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2. Therefore, claim(s) 13 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2.
Claim(s) 3-10, 14-16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2015/0282044 A1 in view of Watfa, US 2022/0264403 A1, and JHA, CN 112425252 A, and further in view of Bhowmik, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. WO 2022/149846.
As to claim 3, Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA teaches the method as recited in claim 2. But Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the inter-RAT management operation is performed at a non-access-stratum (NAS) level.
However, Bhowmik teaches the limitation wherein the inter-RAT management operation is performed at a non-access-stratum (NAS) level (Bhowmik, page 9, paragraph 53; i.e., [0053] the NAS or a AS message to the UE with an indication that the UE should not attempt for the disaster services is given by the HPLMN (or EHPLMN)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA to substitute CoMP from Bhowmik for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA to have a better control of its UEs in order to determine if they have to receive disaster roaming service (Bhowmik, page 2, paragraph 5).
As to claim 4, Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA-Bhowmik teaches the method as recited in claim 3. But Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik failed to teach the claim limitation wherein disabling NR capability in an Attach request that is sent to the PLMN.
However, JHA teaches the limitation wherein disabling NR capability in an Attach request that is sent to the PLMN (JHA, page 37, paragraph 67; i.e., [0067] the EN-DC capability of UE 102 is disabled by setting the DCNR bit in the NAS message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to substitute CoMP from JHA for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to reduce the propagation loss of radio waves and increase the transmission distance (JHA, page 2, paragraph 4).
As to claim 5, Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik teaches the method as recited in claim 3. But Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik failed to teach the claim limitation wherein disabling NR capability in a tracking area update (TAU) request that is sent to the PLMN.
However, JHA teaches the limitation wherein disabling NR capability in a tracking area update (TAU) request that is sent to the PLMN (JHA, page 20, paragraph 47; i.e., [0047] an Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network New Radio – Dual Connectivity (EN-DC) capable User Equipment (UE), the UE comprising at least two transceivers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to substitute CoMP from JHA for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to reduce the propagation loss of radio waves and increase the transmission distance (JHA, page 2, paragraph 4).
As to claim 6, Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik-JHA teaches the method as recited in claim 2. But Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the inter-RAT management operation is performed at an access-stratum (AS) level.
However, Bhowmik teaches the limitation wherein the inter-RAT management operation is performed at a non-access-stratum (NAS) level (Bhowmik, page 9, paragraph 53; i.e., [0053] the NAS or a AS message to the UE with an indication that the UE should not attempt for the disaster services is given by the HPLMN (or EHPLMN)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA to substitute CoMP from Bhowmik for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa-JHA to have a better control of its UEs in order to determine if they have to receive disaster roaming service (Bhowmik, page 2, paragraph 5).
As to claim 7, Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik-JHA teaches the method as recited in claim 6, wherein the second RAT is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) system (Balasubramanian, page 4, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] LTE).
As to claim 8, Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik-JHA teaches the method as recited in claim 7, wherein disabling support of inter-RAT related capability in LTE Capability that is sent to the PLMN (Balasubramanian, page 8, paragraph 74; i.e., [0074] Specifically, in one aspect, system selection component 720 may include switching component 738, which may be configured to determine whether node 702 should switch from its current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748) to another RAT (e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752). In further instances, switching from the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48) to another RAT ( e.g., 2nd RAT and/or Nth RAT 752) comprises one or more of disabling the current RAT (e.g., 1st RAT 748), preventing a timing association of an associated Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 7 48), and forbidding a PLMN identification (ID) for the current RAT ( e.g., 1st RAT 748). In certain aspects, switching RATs may comprise one or more of disabling LTE, preventing a tracking area of an associated Equivalent Home Public Land Mobile Network (EHPLMN) or (HPLMN)).
As to claim 9, Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik-JHA teaches the method as recited in claim 7. But Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik failed to teach the claim limitation wherein setting Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) New Radio-Dual Connectivity(ENDC) capability of the UE as off.
However, JHA teaches the limitation wherein the first RAT is a New Radio (NR) system (JHA, page 7, paragraph 17; i.e., [0017] the ENDC capability of the UE is disabled).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to substitute CoMP from JHA for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to reduce the propagation loss of radio waves and increase the transmission distance (JHA, page 2, paragraph 4).
As to claim 10, Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik-JHA teaches the method as recited in claim 7, wherein not performing an inter-RAT measurement by the UE; or not reporting a result of an inter-RAT measurement by the UE (Balasubramanian, page 7, paragraph 66; i.e., [0066] prohibited from performing scans it is not referred to as a master node. Specifically, master node component 722 may be configured to either allow or prohibit a node from performing system scans based on one or more characteristics. By prohibiting a subset of nodes from performing system scans).
As to claim 20, Balasubramanian-Watfa teaches the method as recited in claim 18. But Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik failed to teach the claim limitation wherein disabling support of inter-RAT related capability in NR Capability that is sent to the second PLMN.
However, JHA teaches the limitation wherein disabling NR capability in an Attach request that is sent to the PLMN (JHA, page 37, paragraph 67; i.e., [0067] the EN-DC capability of UE 102 is disabled by setting the DCNR bit in the NAS message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to substitute CoMP from JHA for access point from Balasubramanian-Watfa-Bhowmik to reduce the propagation loss of radio waves and increase the transmission distance (JHA, page 2, paragraph 4).
Claim(s) 14-15, 16 & 20 is/are directed to a device claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2-3, 6 & 4. Therefore, claim(s) 14-15, 16 & 20 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2-3, 6 & 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Bergquist, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20130017826 A1 discloses forbidden inter-radio access technology, PLMN.
Won, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. WO 2018199952 A1 discloses PLMN and TAU, NR.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights