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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2023 and 01/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the detail of what each boxes function is. The boxes in figures 1-3 should show the detail of what function does and the reference number, as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Figures 1 and 2 are objected to because they are other than only black and white line drawings (the shadow area in elements 10, 20, 120 and 125 should be eliminated) (see MPEP 608.02.VII).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The recitation in page 2 lines 3-7 seems to be improper because should not have mention of claim in the disclosure. Claims could change during prosecution of applications and made this disclosure improper; it is suggested to delete the mention to the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA page 1 lines 8-36 of the present Application in view of Xu (US 10827422 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 20, AAPA discloses identifying at the PLMN that the UE is associated with the MPN (page 1 lines 8-36 “Devices for use on the MPN generally have a Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) dedicated to the MPN. Subscribers registered on a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) can only access the MPN if they are authorized”). AAPA doesn’t discloses initiating, at a core network of the PLMN or the MPN, a detach of the UE from the PLMN in response to the identification. Xu discloses initiating, at a core network of the PLMN or the MPN, a detach of the UE from the PLMN in response to the identification (abstract figures 1-2, 4-6, 8 column 5 line 17 to column 6 line 18; column 9 line 64 to column 10 line 13 “The mobile device periodically collects a set of values for attributes associated with a current location of the mobile device and reports the collected values to the Steering application, hosted at the network side. The Steering application detects whether the mobile device is within the coverage area of the preferred network and, if so, triggers the mobile device to perform network steering”).
PNG
media_image1.png
392
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
AAPA and Xu are analogous art because they are from the same field of communications. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate in the technique disclosed by AAPA the detach technique disclosed by Xu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to steering an EU to a preferred network (Xu abstract) (see also AAPA page 1 lines 8-36 use a robust technique for reattaching the UE to the private network). See also KSR. In the KSR case, the Court stated that in certain circumstances what is obvious to try is also obvious, such as where "there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem, and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Regarding hindsight, the Court found that "[r]igid preventive rules that deny fact finders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it." The Court stated that "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes," analogizing an obvious invention to the fitting together of pieces to a puzzle. The Court in this regard further stated that the person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, and not "an automaton."
Regarding claims 2 and 12, AAPA and Xu disclose claims 1 and 11, AAPA also discloses identifying at the PLMN that the UE is within Radio Access Network (RAN) coverage of the MPN (AAPA page 1 lines 8-36 “The PLMN (for example, the core network of the PLMN) may also first identify that the UE is within Radio Access Network (RAN) coverage of the MPN before initiating the detach”)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, AAPA and Xu disclose claims 1 and 11, AAPA also discloses the UE is attached to a cell of the PLMN, the cell of the PLMN and a cell of the MPN having overlapping coverage areas (AAPA page 1 lines 8-36 “The PLMN (for example, the core network of the PLMN) may also first identify that the UE is within Radio Access Network (RAN) coverage of the MPN before initiating the detach”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that have the same PLMN identifier and different Tracking Area Codes (TAC) because it is one of a finite number of possibilities same identifier or different and same area code or different (See KSR above)
Regarding claims 4 and 14, AAPA and Xu disclose claims 1 and 11, AAPA also discloses the UE is attached to a cell of the PLMN, the cell of the PLMN using the same frequency as a cell of the MPN (AAPA page 1 lines 8-36 “Cells of the MPN can operate on the same frequencies as cells of the PLMN”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, AAPA and Xu disclose claims 1 and 11, Xu also discloses determining, at the core network of the PLMN, that the UE has triggered a Tracking Area Update or an intra-frequency handover, the step of identifying being performed in response to the determination (Xu abstract figure 8 “The mobile device periodically collects a set of values for attributes associated with a current location of the mobile device and reports the collected values to the Steering application, hosted at the network side” … “In steps 442 and 444, authentication and update-location procedures take place. Finally, in step 446, mobile device 446 is successfully attached to Private LTE network 22”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, AAPA and Xu disclose claims 1 and 11, Xu also discloses one or more of a Mobility Management Entity (MME) of the PLMN; a central Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) of the MPN; and a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) of the MPN (Xu abstract figure 1 “If PLMN 14 is an LTE network, then instead of MSC 18 and SGSN 20, PLMN 14 will have the following nodes: a Mobility Management Entity (MME) 18 and Serving Gateway (SGW) 20.” … “Home Network 28 can also be an LTE network, in which case, Home Network 28 will have the following nodes: Home Subscriber Server (HSS) 30 and Packet Gateway (PGW) 32. HLR/HSS 30 of Home Network 28 is in communication with MSC/MME 18 of PLMN 14 and, also, in communication with MME 24/AMF 56 of Private LTE network 22.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, AAPA and Xu disclose claims 1 and 11, Xu also discloses receiving a location report from the UE at the PLMN indicating that the UE is in a coverage area of the MPN and identifying in response to receiving the location report (Xu abstract figure 8 “The mobile device periodically collects a set of values for attributes associated with a current location of the mobile device and reports the collected values to the Steering application, hosted at the network side” … “In steps 442 and 444, authentication and update-location procedures take place. Finally, in step 446, mobile device 446 is successfully attached to Private LTE network 22”).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA and Xu disclose claim 9, Xu also discloses determining at the UE, a location of the UE and communicating a location report from the UE to the PLMN to instruct the PLMN to initiate the detach of the UE (Xu abstract figure 8 “The mobile device periodically collects a set of values for attributes associated with a current location of the mobile device and reports the collected values to the Steering application, hosted at the network side” … “In steps 442 and 444, authentication and update-location procedures take place. Finally, in step 446, mobile device 446 is successfully attached to Private LTE network 22”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhao (US 20150031371 A1) discloses PLMN selection method, mobile terminal, BSC and core network device.
Hathiramani (US 20220174640 A1) discloses private network tracking area collision avoidance.
Diachina (US 20130163560 A1) discloses methods and apparatus for controlling circuit switched fall back of a mobile station from E-UTRAN to UTRAN/GERAN in a full-multi-operator core network.
Dwyer (US 20100265893 A1) discloses network methods and systems for maintaining PLMN Continuity when moving between networks of different types as a function of PLMN continuity preference.
Jokinen (US 20150163698 A1) discloses mechanism to update the CSG cell access check upon PLMN change at handover.
Qi (US 20160249278 A1) discloses network selection method and core network device.
Gulati (US 9185610 B2) discloses handling cell reselection to intra-frequency, inter-frequency, and inter-rat cells of home PLMN.
Tian (US 8452278 B2) discloses Inter-PLMN roaming.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN A TORRES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3119. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth N Vanderpuye can be reached at (571) 272-3078. 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.
/JUAN A TORRES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634