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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on 03/05/2026.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 4-6 are amended.
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 03/05/2026, include the new limitation “wherein the network node is included in a satellite”. This new limitation results in a change in the scope of claim 1, and therefore, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajavelsamy Rajadurai et al (US 20220377548 A1) in view of Stefano Faccin et al (US 20230102300 A1).
Claims 1-6 of the instant application are directed to a wireless communication network comprising network node that receives a registration request from a terminal; transmits information indicating withholding of a registration acceptance to the terminal; performs verification related to a requirement of the terminal to be connected to a network. In a case where the verification is successful, the registration of the terminal is accepted, and, in a case where the verification fails, the registration of the terminal is not accepted, the system shown in FIG. 6.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Rajadurai reference is concerned with a wireless communication system, whereby a UE 108 sends a registration request 801 message to a AMF 502; the AMF 502 sends the SUCI to the AUSF 504 over the Nausf_UEAuthentication_Authenticate request message (step 802); the UDM 506 verifies if the UE 106 has the permissions to access the requested CAG cell/NPN 104 (step 804); and at step 808b, the AMF 502 sends the reject message to the UE 106, the system shown in Fig. 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Qiao reference, for its part, cures the deficiency of Rajadurai. The Faccin reference is concerned with a mechanism for unmanned vehicle authorization for operation over cellular networks, whereby a UE 108 sends a registration request 333 message to a AMF 322; the AMF 322 sends Registration Accept message 345. The registration accept message may include an indication that a USAA procedure is pending or is to be performed before the UE may gain access to aerial services. The process flow is depicted in FIG. 3, below.
PNG
media_image3.png
554
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1, Rajadurai discloses a network node comprising: a receiver configured to receive a registration request from a terminal (Rajadurai teaches, in Fig. 8, step 801, that UE 108 sends a registration request 801 message to a AMF 502); withholding of a registration acceptance to the terminal (Rajadurai teaches, in Fig. 8, step 802, that the AMF 502 sends the SUCI to the AUSF 504 over the Nausf_UEAuthentication_Authenticate request message to the AUSF); and a processor configured to perform verification related to a requirement of the terminal to be connected to a network (Rajadurai teaches, in Fig. 8, step 804, that the UDM 506 verifies if the UE 106 has the permissions to access the requested CAG cell/NPN 104), wherein in a case where the verification by the control unit is successful, the registration of the terminal is accepted (Rajadurai teaches, in ¶ 0058, that If the UE 106 has the permissions to access the selected network 104, the PLMN 102 may perform a primary authentication procedure of the UE 106 and allow the UE 106 to access the selected network 104 for the communication services, if the primary authentication procedure of the UE 106 is successful), and, in a case where the verification fails, the registration of the terminal is not accepted (Rajadurai further teaches, in ¶ 0206, that At step 808b, the AMF 502 sends the reject message to the UE 106 in the unprotected reject mode).
Rajadurai fails to expressly teach transmitting the information indicating the withholding of a registration acceptance, and wherein the network node is included in a satellite.
However, Faccin, in analogous art, discloses transmitting the information indicating the withholding of a registration acceptance, and wherein the network node is included in a satellite (Faccin teaches, in ¶ 0146, that the AMF 322 sends Registration Accept message 345. The registration accept message may include an indication that a USAA procedure is pending or is to be performed before the UE may gain access to aerial services).
Faccin teaches, in ¶ 0141, that At block 331, a UE that is coupled with UAV 320 may perform a procedure for obtaining a UUID and credentials used to protect communications between UAV 320 and UFMS 324.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Rajadurai with the USAA operations as taught in Faccin. The motivation is to allow a UE to register with and establish a data session with a wireless network [Faccin: ¶ 0005]
For Claim 3, Rajadurai discloses a network node, wherein the requirement is a requirement related to a geographical location of the terminal (Rajadurai teaches, in ¶ 0050, that the PLMN 102 located in the area 1 acts as the HPLMN 102 for the UE 106. The HPLMN 102 manages the UE profile and provides the communication services to the UE 106, when the UE 106 is located in the area 1. When the UE 106 roams to an area 2, the HPLMN 102 may no longer provide the communication services to the UE 106)
For Claim 6, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajavelsamy Rajadurai et al (US 20220377548 A1) in view of Stefano Faccin et al (US 20230102300 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vijay Venkataraman et al (US 20220312182 A1).
For Claim 2, Rajadurai and Faccin disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the information indicating the withholding indicates that a target of the verification is a geographical location of the terminal and that, in addition to a normal call, an emergency call is not permitted during the withholding.
However, Venkataraman, in analogous art, discloses that the information indicating the withholding indicates that a target of the verification is a geographical location of the terminal (Venkataraman teaches, in ¶ 0023, lines 7-11, that network configurations in certain locations (e.g., PLMN A having 5G network setup but having emergency calls supported only in 2G and/or 3G) can indicate that IMS emergency calls are not supported) and that, in addition to a normal call, an emergency call is not permitted during the withholding (Venkataraman teaches, in ¶ 0073, lines 14-19, that In certain such embodiments, the SIB comprises a first SIB (SIB1) including a first information element (IE) configured to indicate whether a roaming emergency policy is allowed or disallowed, or a second SIB (SIB2) including a second IE to indicate a roaming emergency barring policy).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Rajadurai and Faccin with the roaming emergency policy taught in Venkataraman. The motivation is to inform the UE whether or not the use of emergency services is supported.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajavelsamy Rajadurai et al (US 20220377548 A1) in view of Stefano Faccin et al (US 20230102300 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kai Du et al (WO 2022178938 A1).
For Claim 4, Rajadurai and Faccin disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that a terrestrial coverage region corresponding to the radio network node overlaps, geographically, with the non-terrestrial geographic zone.
However, Du, in analogous art, discloses wherein the control unit determines that the verification is successful in a case where the geographical location of the terminal corresponds to the network (Du teaches, in FIG. 4, S404, when the current geographic location is within the valid geographic location range, accept and process the registration request), and determines that the verification fails in a case where the geographical location of the terminal does not correspond to the network (Du teaches, in FIG. 4, S405, when the current geographic location of the terminal is not within the valid geographic location range, reject and discard the registration request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Rajadurai and Faccin with acquiring the geographic location of the terminal as taught in Du. The motivation is to use geographic information in determining a target cell from among the valid cells.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajavelsamy Rajadurai et al (US 20220377548 A1) in view of Stefano Faccin et al (US 20230102300 A1) & Kai Du et al (WO 2022178938 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kundan Tiwari et al (US 20240187968 A1).
For Claim 5, Rajadurai, Faccin and Du disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that a terrestrial coverage region corresponding to the radio network node overlaps, geographically, with the non-terrestrial geographic zone.
However, Tiwari, in analogous art, discloses wherein the control unit determines that the verification is successful in a case where the geographical location of the terminal corresponds to the network (Tiwari teaches, in in ¶ 0612, that For NR satellite access, if the AMF can determine based on the Selected PLMN ID and ULI (including Cell ID) received from the gNB that the UE is attempting to register to a PLMN that is not allowed to operate at the present UE location, then the AMF should reject the Registration Request indicating a suitable Cause value and, if known in AMF, the country of the UE location. … and be prepared to deregister the UE if the information received from LMF proves that the UE is registered to a PLMN that is not allowed to operate in the UE location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Rajadurai, Faccin and Du with deregistering the terminal as taught in Tiwari. The motivation is to prevent the UE from accessing a PLMN that it is not is not allowed to operate in.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejection - 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the prior art is silent on " (i) ‘a transmitter configured to transmit information indicating withholding of a registration acceptance to the terminal;’ and
(ii) ‘wherein the network node is included in a satellite’," as recited in amended claim 1 (see remarks, pages 6-8).
The reason being Faccin teaches, in ¶ 0146, that the AMF 322 sends Registration Accept message 345. The registration accept message may include an indication that a USAA procedure is pending or is to be performed before the UE may gain access to aerial services.
Faccin teaches, in ¶ 0141, that At block 331, a UE that is coupled with UAV 320 may perform a procedure for obtaining a UUID and credentials used to protect communications between UAV 320 and UFMS 324.
Thus, Examiner respectfully asserts that Rajadurai and Faccin, in combination, teach at least the above-referenced limitations (i) and (ii) of independent claim 1. The same is true for amended independent claim 6, which recites substantially similar subject matter.
Separately, Applicant appears confused by citing, in the rejection, that Rajadurai teaches, in Fig. 8, step 802, that the AMF 502 sends the SUCI to the AUSF 504 over the Nausf_UEAuthentication_Authenticate request message to the AUSF. Examiner used this recitation to suggest/teach withholding the acceptance since the authentication procedure must first complete before any acceptance is provided. But, Rajadurai fails to teach the express act of transmitting indication/information pertaining to the withholding, as stated in the rejection.
MPEP 2145 admonishes Applicant to beware that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
In view of the above, the cited references do, in fact, support an obviousness rejection of amended independent claims 1 and 6.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from amended independent claim 1 and are not yet patentable for depending from a rejected base claim, as well as for being rejected on their own merits. Accordingly, the rejection is respectfully maintained as proper.
Similarly, dependent claims 4-5 are also not yet patentable for depending from a rejected base claim, as well as for being rejected on their own merits.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-6, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
Conclusion
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 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 MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights