DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/06/2026 with respect to amended claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a). Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 that, “The Applicant understands this to mean that the UE isn't receiving anything from the allowable PLMN. In this case, the "UE will check the SIB and/or MIB information that is broadcast by forbidden PLMNs." Here, the UE receives a message from the Forbidden PLMN because the UE went out looking for it, because no messages were being received from the allowable PLMN” that is incorrect.
In response to applicant’s specific argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s comments. See, para [0069], the Allowable PLMN indicates to the UE that it is in a disaster situation. See, Fig. 2, the disaster condition detected and during PLMN registration when attempt to register, the registration failed and no allowable PLMN found, it self proves that communication occurring between the PLMN and UE and UE try to register with the allowable PLMN and as shown in fig 1. Note that since communication performed between the non-forbidden PLMN and UE, the broadcast message between the UE and non-forbidden PLMN occurs. Also note that claim does not explicitly describes what these broadcast message from non-forbidden PLMN indicates. Hence, examiner takes broadest reasonable interpretation that the message communicates between non-forbidden and UE to register with PLMN indicates the broadcast message.
b). Applicant’s argument regarding claim that, Thus, Starsinic et al. provides two alternative processes. In the first, the UE learns of the disaster from the allowable PLMN, but receives no message from the forbidden PLMN. And, the Applicant notes, because the allowable PLMN was able to communicate its state to the UE, there is no reason for the UE to also obtain this information from the forbidden PLMN. In the other alternative, the UE isn't hearing from the allowable PLMN, so isn't receiving the claimed broadcast message from a non-forbidden PLMN. That is incorrect.
In response to applicant’s specific argument, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s comments. See, para [0087] The UE may alternatively, or additionally, receive an indication from a second PLMN that a first PLMN is in a disaster situation. For example, a PLMN may broadcast an SIB message Disaster Information that indicates that another PLMN is in a disaster situation. [0088], the UE will check the SIB and/or MIB information that is broadcast by forbidden PLMNs to determine if they are broadcasting an indication that they are accepting disaster inbound roamers or if any of the forbidden PLMNs is broadcasting an indication that the UE's home network is in a disaster situation. Clearly, here, the forbidden broadcasting message indicating that the UE’s home network is in disaster situation and thereafter performs disaster PLMN selection procedure. See, also para [0076], it may be based on the UE reading information that is being broadcasted in the PLMN that was in a disaster situation or it may be based on the UE detecting that a PLMN stopped broadcasting an indication that it is in a disaster condition, that also suggests the Forbidden PLMN broadcast message to UE.
Therefore, from the above mentioned reason, examiner has maintained the same grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Starsinic et al. (US2024/0007878) (hereafter Starsinic).
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Starsinic discloses a network selection method comprising: receiving, by an apparatus (see, Fig. 1, UE), a broadcast message from a non-forbidden public land mobile network (PLMN) (see, Fig. 1, the allowable PLMN) and a broadcast message from a forbidden PLMN, wherein the broadcast message of the forbidden PLMN (see, Fig. 1, Forbidden PLMN) comprises a disaster occurrence indication indicating that a disaster has occurred on the non-forbidden PLMN (see, Fig. 1, the Allowable RAN indicates the disaster situation and step 2, detect disaster condition in the allowable PLMN which is non-forbidden PLMN, para [0076], it may be based on the UE reading information that is being broadcasted in the PLMN that was in a disaster situation or it may be based on the UE detecting that a PLMN stopped broadcasting an indication that it is in a disaster condition, see para [0080], disaster information received by the UE in broadcast, para [0088], in the disaster detection procedure, the UE will check the SIB and/or MIB information that is broadcast by forbidden PLMNs to determine if they are broadcasting an indication that they are accepting disaster inbound roamers or if any of the forbidden PLMNs is broadcasting an indication that the UE's home network is in a disaster situation); and
requesting, by the apparatus based on the disaster occurrence indication, to register with the forbidden PLMN, in response to apparatus failing to register with the non-forbidden PLMN (see, para [0005] a UE may perform an enhanced PLMN selection procedure once the UE determines that one or more of its Allowable PLMNs are in a disaster situation. [0006] a UE may perform a disaster PLMN selection procedure, whereby the UE determines how to prioritize forbidden PLMNs and selects a PLMN to attempt to connect for disaster roaming. [0072], the UE might find no Allowable PLMNs. para [0073], In step 3b, the UE begins a Disaster PLMN Selection procedure. the UE selects a PLMN form its Forbidden PLMN list or a PLMN that is not the UE's HPLMN, an EHPLMN, or a VPLMN that is known to the UE to obtain services during the disaster, see step 4, register with the Forbidden PLMN).
Starsinic further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program or instructions which, when executed by a communication apparatus, cause the communication apparatus to perform method as per claim 20 (para [0285], [0307]).
Regarding claim 2, Starsinic further discloses the method further comprises:
requesting, by the apparatus, to register with the non-forbidden PLMN (see, step 4, register with the forbidden PLMN); and determining, by the apparatus, that the registration with the non-forbidden PLMN has failed based on: the apparatus receiving, from the non-forbidden PLMN, a response indicating that the registration with the non-forbidden PLMN has failed (see, fig. , the allowable PLMN indicates the disaster situation and 1b. detect disaster condition in an allowable PLMN), or the apparatus not receiving a response from the non-forbidden PLMN within a predetermined duration, [0174] As illustrated in step 4 of FIG. 1, when the UE sends a Registration Request to the network, the UE may include a disaster indication in both the RRC and NAS parts of the message, [0175] The disaster indication may be an information element in the Registration Request).
Regarding claim 11, Starsinic further discloses the method, wherein the forbidden PLMN belongs to a forbidden PLMN set, and the forbidden PLMN set comprises a forbidden PLMN for a disaster check (see, Fig. 2, disaster PLMN selection, check forbidden PLMNs are known to accept the disaster roamers).
Regarding claim 12, Starsinic further discloses the method, wherein the broadcast message of the forbidden PLMN comprises a disaster roaming indication (see, Fig.2 , [0006] Third, a UE may perform a disaster PLMN selection procedure, whereby the UE determines how to prioritize forbidden PLMNs and selects a PLMN to attempt to connect for disaster roaming, [0146] The UE may also have been configured with information that informs the UE that Disaster Roaming (e.g., Disaster PLMN Selection) is not allowed in certain geographical areas. When the UE is configured with such information, the UE will not begin the Disaster PLMN Selection procedure), and that indicates to select the forbidden PLMN for performing disaster roaming (see, Fig. 2, disaster PLMN selection in which check Forbidden PLMNs that are known to accept disaster roamers).
Regarding claim 13, Starsinic further discloses the method, wherein the forbidden PLMN belongs to a forbidden PLMN set, and that comprises a forbidden PLMN for performing disaster roaming (see, Fig. 2, the disaster PLMN selection with the Forbidden PLMNs, see, para [0148], [0154], forbidden list, [0150], disaster roamers).
Regarding claim 14, Starsinic further discloses the method, wherein before requesting, by the apparatus, to register with the forbidden PLMN, the method further comprises: determining, by the apparatus, that the apparatus supports a minimization of service interruption (see, Fig. 1, para [0011], [0049], minimization of service interruption procedure).
Regarding claim 15, Starsinic further discloses the method, wherein the determining, that the apparatus supports the minimization of service interruption comprises: based on version information of the apparatus or capability information of the apparatus, (see, para [0086], In response to the UE providing such an indication, the network may provide a list of Forbidden PLMNs that the UE may try to connect to in case of disaster conditions. The list may contain a version number in which the network maintains and references to during disaster situations. Different lists may be maintained in which the order of the PLMNs is based on the UE identity or, the list may contain different numbers of Forbidden PLMNs to disperse where roaming UEs connect to during disaster conditions).
Regarding claim 16, Starsinic further discloses the method, further comprises: camping on, by the apparatus, an acceptable cell whose signal quality meets a predetermined condition and that is in any PLMN, and entering a restricted mode (see, [0170], the UE may behave as if the NR radio is restricted (e.g., not allowed) when a disaster situation is detected. If the UE successfully uses the non-3GPP RAT to register with the Disaster PLMN, then the UE may consider the NR radio to be restricted until the Disaster Network signals to the UE that the NR radio is no longer restricted).
Regarding claim 19, Starsinic further discloses a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and an interface circuit (see, para [0285]), configured to receive a signal from a communication apparatus and transmit the signal to the processor (se, Fig. 5, [0285], [0307]), or send a signal from the processor to the other communication apparatus; and the processor is configured to
receiving, by an apparatus (see, Fig. 1, UE), a broadcast message from a non-forbidden public land mobile network (PLMN) (see, Fig. 1, the allowable PLMN) and a broadcast message from a forbidden PLMN, wherein the broadcast message of the forbidden PLMN (see, Fig. 1, Forbidden PLMN) comprises a disaster occurrence indication indicating that a disaster has occurred on the non-forbidden PLMN (see, Fig. 1, the Allowable RAN indicates the disaster situation and step 2, detect disaster condition in the allowable PLMN which is non-forbidden PLMN, para [0076], it may be based on the UE reading information that is being broadcasted in the PLMN that was in a disaster situation or it may be based on the UE detecting that a PLMN stopped broadcasting an indication that it is in a disaster condition, see para [0080], disaster information received by the UE in broadcast, para [0088], in the disaster detection procedure, the UE will check the SIB and/or MIB information that is broadcast by forbidden PLMNs to determine if they are broadcasting an indication that they are accepting disaster inbound roamers or if any of the forbidden PLMNs is broadcasting an indication that the UE's home network is in a disaster situation); and
requesting, by the apparatus based on the disaster occurrence indication, to register with the forbidden PLMN, in response to apparatus failing to register with the non-forbidden PLMN (see, para [0005] a UE may perform an enhanced PLMN selection procedure once the UE determines that one or more of its Allowable PLMNs are in a disaster situation. [0006] a UE may perform a disaster PLMN selection procedure, whereby the UE determines how to prioritize forbidden PLMNs and selects a PLMN to attempt to connect for disaster roaming. [0072], the UE might find no Allowable PLMNs. para [0073], In step 3b, the UE begins a Disaster PLMN Selection procedure. the UE selects a PLMN form its Forbidden PLMN list or a PLMN that is not the UE's HPLMN, an EHPLMN, or a VPLMN that is known to the UE to obtain services during the disaster, see step 4, register with the Forbidden PLMN).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic et al. (US2024/0007878)(hereafter Starsinic) in view of Jiang (US 2020/0154325)(hereafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 10, Starsinic does not explicitly disclose the method, wherein a signal quality of the non-forbidden PLMN is higher than a signal quality of the forbidden PLMN. However, in same field of endeavor, Jiang teaches when the highest signal quality corresponding to the suitable cells providing the normal service as determined by the seventh determining submodule is higher than a second strength threshold, determine a cell with the highest signal quality among the suitable cells providing the normal service as the cell to be camped on; [0054] when the highest signal quality corresponding to the suitable cells providing the normal service as determined by the seventh determining submodule is not higher than the second strength threshold, determine a highest signal quality corresponding to the suitable cells providing the restricted service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Jiang with the Starsinic, as a whole, so as to providing the cell to be camped on or to provide restricted service to the UE based on signal quality, the motivation is to effectively determine the cell to be camped on.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights