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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2022/0225266).
-Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a method implemented in a User Equipment (UE) for service recovery in a wireless communication network (abstract, FIG. 6), the method comprising: establishing a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection with a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) via a first cell corresponding to a network (PLMN and a radio resource control (RRC) connection, paragraph 29); transmitting, to the network, one of a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) establishment request or a registration request for a service from the first cell using the first RRC connection (registration procedure and service request procedure, paragraph 28); receiving, from the network in response to the one of the PDU establishment request or the registration request, one of a PDU establishment failure message or a registration reject message based on at least location information of the UE (NAS message indicates that the UE is not permitted to access the first PLMN over a satellite communication along with at least one of a geographical indication or a timer indication, paragraph 28); performing a local release of the first RRC connection with the first cell based on the one of the PDU establishment failure message or the registration reject message (sending, by the first network, at least one of a detach request, a deregistration request, or a radio resource control (RRC) connection release to the UE through at least one of a NAS signaling and access stratum (AS) signaling based on the detection, paragraph 29); and establishing a second RRC connection with one of the first PLMN via a second cell of another network or a second PLMN via the first cell corresponding to the network (handover of the UE to a target core network of the first network or a second network in a new serving area, paragraph 30, FIG. 8A-C).
-Regarding claim 2, Kumar further discloses adding the PLMN to a restricted list of PLMNs, the restricted list of PLMNs corresponding to a "PLMN not allowed to operate at the present UE location" list maintained by the UE based on the PDU establishment failure message (FPLMN, paragraph 121).
-Regarding claim 3, Kumar further discloses the first cell corresponds to a Next Generation-Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) satellite cell and the second cell corresponds to a Radio Access Technology (RAT)-based cell different from the first cell (paragraphs 20-21, FIG. 1, 5).
-Regarding claim 4, Kumar further discloses performing a local deregistration with the first cell based on the PDU establishment failure message (paragraph 17, 29, 54).
-Regarding claim 5, Kumar further discloses performing mobility registration using an available registration context with the first PLMN via the second cell of the other network or the second PLMN via the first cell corresponding to the network (the UE (100) may now try on other available PLMN(s) as per UE's physical location, paragraph 111).
-Regarding claim 6, Kumar further discloses selecting the second PLMN from among one or more PLMNs identified as a result of a PLMN selection procedure (performing by the UE, a PLMN selection and registration procedure on a second PLMN based on the determination, paragraph 20).
-Regarding claim 7, Kumar further discloses initializing a timer based on performing a local deregistration with the first cell; performing the local release of the first RRC connection in response to determining the first RRC connection has not been released by the network by expiry of the timer; and performing a PLMN selection based on the performing the local release of the first RRC connection (paragraph 86).
-Regarding claim 12, Kumar discloses a system for service recovery at a User Equipment (UE) in a wireless communication network (abstract, FIG. 6), the system comprising: a processing circuitry (processor 110, FIG. 3A) configured to: establish a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection with a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) via a first cell corresponding to a network (PLMN and a radio resource control (RRC) connection, paragraph 29); transmit, to the network, one of a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) establishment request or a registration request for a service from the first cell using the first RRC connection (registration procedure and service request procedure, paragraph 28); receive, from the network in response to the one of the PDU establishment request or the registration request, one of a PDU establishment failure message or a registration reject message based on at least location information of the UE (NAS message indicates that the UE is not permitted to access the first PLMN over a satellite communication along with at least one of a geographical indication or a timer indication, paragraph 28), perform a local release of the first RRC connection with the first cell based on the one of the PDU establishment failure message or the registration reject message (sending, by the first network, at least one of a detach request, a deregistration request, or a radio resource control (RRC) connection release to the UE through at least one of a NAS signaling and access stratum (AS) signaling based on the detection, paragraph 29), and establish a second RRC connection with one of the first PLMN via a second cell of another network or a second PLMN via the first cell corresponding to the network (handover of the UE to a target core network of the first network or a second network in a new serving area, paragraph 30, FIG. 8A-C).
-Regarding claim 13, Kumar further discloses the processing circuity is configured to: add the PLMN to a restricted list of PLMNs, the restricted list of PLMNs corresponding to a "PLMN not allowed to operate at the present UE location" list maintained by the UE based on the PDU establishment failure message (FPLMN, paragraph 121).
-Regarding claim 14, Kumar further discloses the first cell corresponds to a Next Generation-Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) satellite cell and the second cell corresponds to a Radio Access Technology (RAT)-based cell different from the first cell (paragraphs 20-21, FIG. 1, 5).
-Regarding claim 15, Kumar further discloses the processing circuity is configured to: perform mobility registration using an available registration context with the first PLMN via a second cell of the other network or the second PLMN via the first cell corresponding to the network (the UE (100) may now try on other available PLMN(s) as per UE's physical location, paragraph 111).
-Regarding claim 16, Kumar further discloses the processing circuity is configured to: perform a local deregistration with the first cell based on the PDU establishment failure message (paragraph 86).
-Regarding claim 17, Kumar further discloses the processing circuity is configured to: selecting the second PLMN from among one or more PLMNs identified as a result of a PLMN selection procedure (performing by the UE, a PLMN selection and registration procedure on a second PLMN based on the determination, paragraph 20).
-Regarding claim 18, Kumar further discloses the processing circuity is configured to: initialize a timer based on performing a local deregistration with the first cell; perform the local release of the first RRC connection in response to determining the first RRC connection has not been released by the network by expiry of the timer; and perform a PLMN selection based on performing the local release of the first RRC connection (paragraph 86).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2022/0225266) in view of Watfa (U.S. PG-PUB NO. 2022/0232363).
-Regarding claims 8 and 19, Kumar is silent to teaching that the timer is a T3540 timer. However, the claimed limitation is well known in the art as evidenced by Watfa.
In the same field of endeavor, Watfa teaches the timer is a T3540 timer (paragraph 97).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kumar with the teaching of Watfa based on design preference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 allowed.
Claim 23 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In pages 9-12 of remarks, regarding claims 1 and 12, applicant argues that Kumar is silent regarding “performing a local release of the first RRC connection with the first cell based on the one of the PDU establishment failure message or the registration reject message [received in response to the one of the PDU establishment request or the registration request]”; Kumar also does not disclose the RRC connection release and the indication that the UE is not permitted to access the first PLMN being the same message or being interchangeable; and accordingly, Kumar does not disclose or suggest at least, “receiving, from the network in response to the one of the PDU establishment request or the registration request, one of a PDU establishment failure message or a registration rejection message based on at least location information of the UE; [and] performing a local release of the first RRC connection with the first cell based on one of the PDU establishment failure message or the registration reject message.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Kumar discloses receiving the registration reject in response to the registration request and based on the UE's location: "the PLMN D may send the registration reject to the UE (100) in response to the registration request." (Kumar, [0111]); "the UE (100) receives the NAS message in response to attempting a registration procedure or a service request procedure or a NAS procedure on the first PLMN (200 a) over the satellite communication network" and "The NAS message can be, for example, but not limited to a registration reject message" (Kumar, [0059]); and "when reject is given to the UE, an area is also indicate which is provided in the form geographical co-ordinates or the distance from current location, the UE determines its current location using for e.g. GPS" (Kumar, [0055]). Further, Kumar indeed discloses the UE performing the local release, in which "The UE can trigger deregistration procedure, or the UE can perform local release with current PLMN, performs PLMN selection to camp and register onto the other PLMN which allows UE to register with the network" (Kumar, [0055]), corroborated by "The UE can trigger deregistration procedure, or UE can perform local release with current PLMN" (Kumar, [0054]) and "the UE (100) may perform a local release of the RRC connection optionally after waiting for the network to release the signaling connection for "X" duration of time." (Kumar, [0100]); because [0055] recites both the location-based reject and the responsive UE-performed local release, the local release is disclosed as being performed "based on" the reject exactly as claimed. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the reject message and the local release to be the same message or interchangeable) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, claim 1 does not require the reject message and the local release to be the same message or interchangeable — it requires the UE to perform a local release "based on" (i.e., causally responsive to) the reject, which Kumar discloses at [0055], and the recited "local release" is a UE action (the UE releasing its own RRC connection, [0100]), not a NAS message, so whether Kumar's separate network-initiated "RRC connection release procedure" ([0101]) is content-identical to the not-permitted indication is irrelevant to the claim as written. Accordingly, Kumar clearly discloses all limitations as claimed in claims 1 and 12.
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 PING Y HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PING Y HSIEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights