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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/29/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, the term “the AF” should be recited “the application function (AF)” in this first instance. Also, on line 2, it appears that the word “the” is missing before the term “UE”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (U.S. 12,302,239) (hereinafter “Wang”). Wang teaches all of the limitations of the specified claims with the reasoning that follows.
Regarding claim 1, “a method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) from a base station of a network, discovery information indicating one or more localized services that are accessible via the network; obtaining, by the UE, detailed information about the one or more localized services” is anticipated by a WTRU (UE) 102 that receives updated steering of roaming (SOR) parameter(s) (discovery information) from an AMF 182 (via a base station 180) over a downlink Non-Access Stratum (DL NAS) message, where the SOR parameter(s) include a constructed priority list for the hosting networks providing a local service (detailed information) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 6 (steps 8 and 11), and spoken of on column 19, line 64 – column 20, line 8.
Lastly, “determining, by the UE, to select the network based on the discovery information, the detailed information, and a preconfigured localized services and network selection policy; and connecting, by the UE, to the network to access a localized service of the one or more localized services based on the discovery information, the detailed information, and the preconfigured localized services and network selection policy” is anticipated by the WTRU that compares (determining) the network-preferred priority list and its own priority list in order to select one of the hosting networks to access the local service, and subsequently attempts a registration (connecting) to the selected hosting network as shown in Figure 6 (steps 13 and 14), and spoken of on column 20, lines 9-19; where the constructed priority list accounts for service level agreements of the hosting networks having associated policies (network selection policy) as spoken of on column 17, lines 12-20 as well as lines 51-59.
Regarding claim 4, “the discovery information further indicating that the network supports querying of the detailed information and a query type, the query type being one of querying with a radio access network (RAN) of the network, querying with a core network function of the network, or querying with an application function (AF) of a second network different from the network, the obtaining the detailed information comprising: performing, by the UE with the network, a query requesting the detailed information about the one or more localized services; and receiving, by the UE, a query response indicating the detailed information about the one or more localized services” is anticipated by the WTRU that sends an access request (query) to its home PLMN (second network) regarding a specific local service, which may be a conventional service (voice, data) or a new service, e.g., computing services, ML services, or storage services) as shown in step 1a of Figure 6, which results in the AMF transmitting updated SOR parameter(s) (discovery information including detailed information) to the WTRU via a DL NAS message (query response from AMF) as shown in step 11 of Figure 6; where the access request also prompts the AMF to send a SOR information/parameter update request to the UDM as shown in step 2 of Figure 6 and spoken of on column 19, lines 35-47, as well as column 20, lines 5-7.
Regarding claim 6, “the detailed information including at least one of a service type of the localized service, a service name, or a service identity of the localized service” is anticipated by the priority list for the hosting networks constructed in relation to service information retrieved from the PALS networks such as QoS/KPI information; where various QoS/KPI assignments exist for different service types (service type of localized service) as spoken of on column 17, lines 41-46, as well as column 17, line 64 – column 18, line 13.
Regarding claim 7, “the detailed information including a valid condition for accessing the localized service and the network, the valid condition including at least one of a location restriction, a time of operation, an operation time period, a moving speed, or a signaling strength” is anticipated by the SOR information that may include time window (time of operation) or area information (location restriction) as spoken of on column 14, lines 10-14 and 24-31.
Regarding claim 8, “the discovery information further including a list of localized service provider identities or a service operator group identity representing a set of service providers having business agreements with one another” is anticipated by the WTRU (UE) 102 that receives updated steering of roaming (SOR) parameter(s) (discovery information) from an AMF 182 (via a base station 180) over a downlink Non-Access Stratum (DL NAS) message, where the SOR parameter(s) include a constructed priority list for the hosting networks (localized service provider identities) providing a local service (detailed information) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 6 (steps 8 and 11), and spoken of on column 14, lines 15-17, as well as column 19, line 64 – column 20, line 8.
Regarding claim 9, “the discovery information further including a list of localized service identities or a service group identity representing the one or more localized services” is anticipated by the SOR information that may include a prioritized list of PALS network identifiers associated with one or more Closed Access Group IDs (service group identity) as spoken of on column 14, lines 15-17 and 49-54.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the preconfigured localized services and network selection policy is provisioned by a home network of the UE or by a localized service provider via a user parameter update (UPU) procedure, a user configuration update (UCU) procedure, or a policy update procedure” is anticipated by the PLMN (home network) of Figure 6 that maintains (provisions) short-term event-based service level agreements having different charging policies (localized services and network selection policy) depending on the infrastructure capabilities or agreements between the hosting networks and the infrastructure owner as spoken of on column 17, lines 2-20.
Regarding claim 11, “an apparatus, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE) or a chip system of the UE and the apparatus comprising: a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the non-transitory memory storage, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to perform operations including: receiving, from a base station of a network, discovery information indicating one or more localized services that are accessible via the network; obtaining detailed information about the one or more localized services” is anticipated by a WTRU (UE) 102 that receives updated steering of roaming (SOR) parameter(s) (discovery information) from an AMF 182 (via a base station 180) over a downlink Non-Access Stratum (DL NAS) message, where the SOR parameter(s) include a constructed priority list for the hosting networks providing a local service (detailed information) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 6 (steps 8 and 11), and spoken of on column 19, line 64 – column 20, line 8; and where the WTRU of 102 includes a processor 118 coupled to memory 130, 132 as shown in Figure 1B.
Lastly, “determining to select the network based on the discovery information, the detailed information, and a preconfigured localized services and network selection policy; and connecting to the network to access a localized service of the one or more localized services based on the discovery information, the further detailed information, and the preconfigured localized services and network selection policy” is anticipated by the WTRU that compares (determining) the network-preferred priority list and its own priority list in order to select one of the hosting networks to access the local service, and subsequently attempts a registration (connecting) to the selected hosting network as shown in Figure 6 (steps 13 and 14), and spoken of on column 20, lines 9-19; where the constructed priority list accounts for service level agreements of the hosting networks having associated policies (network selection policy) as spoken of on column 17, lines 12-20 as well as lines 51-59.
Regarding claim 12, “the detailed information including a valid condition for accessing the localized service and the network, the valid condition including at least one of a location restriction, a time of operation, an operation time period, a moving speed, or a signaling strength” is anticipated by the SOR information that may include time window (time of operation) or area information (location restriction) as spoken of on column 14, lines 10-14 and 24-31.
Regarding claim 14, “the discovery information further including one or more of a list of localized service provider identities, a service operator group identity representing a set of service providers having business agreements with one another, a list of localized service identities, or a service group identity representing the one or more localized services” is anticipated by the WTRU (UE) 102 that receives updated steering of roaming (SOR) parameter(s) (discovery information) from an AMF 182 (via a base station 180) over a downlink Non-Access Stratum (DL NAS) message, where the SOR parameter(s) include a constructed priority list for the hosting networks (localized service provider identities) providing a local service (detailed information) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 6 (steps 8 and 11), and spoken of on column 14, lines 15-17, as well as column 19, line 64 – column 20, line 8.
Regarding claim 15, “wherein the preconfigured localized services and network selection policy is provisioned by a home network of the UE or by a localized service provider via a user parameter update (UPU) procedure, a user configuration update (UCU) procedure, or a policy update procedure” is anticipated by the PLMN (home network) of Figure 6 that maintains (provisions) short-term event-based service level agreements having different charging policies (localized services and network selection policy) depending on the infrastructure capabilities or agreements between the hosting networks and the infrastructure owner as spoken of on column 17, lines 2-20.
Regarding claim 16, “a system comprising a user equipment (UE) and a first network device, wherein the first network device comprises at least one first processor configured to transmit, to the UE, discovery information indicating one or more localized services that are accessible via a network; and wherein the UE comprises at least one second processor configured to: receive the discovery information, obtain detailed information about the one or more localized services” is anticipated by a WTRU (UE) 102 that receives updated steering of roaming (SOR) parameter(s) (discovery information) from an AMF 182 (via a base station 180) over a downlink Non-Access Stratum (DL NAS) message, where the SOR parameter(s) include a constructed priority list for the hosting networks providing a local service (detailed information) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 6 (steps 8 and 11), and spoken of on column 19, line 64 – column 20, line 8; and where the WTRU of 102 includes a processor 118 (second processor) coupled to memory 130, 132 as shown in Figure 1B while a processor (first processor) may also be used with a base station (first network device) as spoken of on column 24, lines 16-19.
Lastly, “determine to select the network based on the discovery information, the detailed information, and a preconfigured localized services and network selection policy; and connect to the network to access a localized service of the one or more localized services based on the discovery information, the detailed information, and the preconfigured localized services and network selection policy” is anticipated by the WTRU that compares (determining) the network-preferred priority list and its own priority list in order to select one of the hosting networks to access the local service, and subsequently attempts a registration (connecting) to the selected hosting network as shown in Figure 6 (steps 13 and 14), and spoken of on column 20, lines 9-19; where the constructed priority list accounts for service level agreements of the hosting networks having associated policies (network selection policy) as spoken of on column 17, lines 12-20 as well as lines 51-59.
Regarding claim 17, “the detailed information includes a valid condition for accessing the localized service and the network, the valid condition including at least one of a location restriction, a time of operation, an operation time period, a moving speed, or a signaling strength” is anticipated by the SOR information that may include time window (time of operation) or area information (location restriction) as spoken of on column 14, lines 10-14 and 24-31.
Regarding claim 19, “wherein the discovery information further includes one or more of a list of localized service provider identities, a service operator group identity representing a set of service providers having business agreements with one another, a list of localized service identities, or a service group identity representing the one or more localized services” is anticipated by the WTRU (UE) 102 that receives updated steering of roaming (SOR) parameter(s) (discovery information) from an AMF 182 (via a base station 180) over a downlink Non-Access Stratum (DL NAS) message, where the SOR parameter(s) include a constructed priority list for the hosting networks (localized service provider identities) providing a local service (detailed information) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 6 (steps 8 and 11), and spoken of on column 14, lines 15-17, as well as column 19, line 64 – column 20, line 8.
Regarding claim 20, “wherein the preconfigured localized services and network selection policy is provisioned by a home network of the UE or by a localized service provider via a user parameter update (UPU) procedure, a user configuration update (UCU) procedure, or a policy update procedure” is anticipated by the PLMN (home network) of Figure 6 that maintains (provisions) short-term event-based service level agreements having different charging policies (localized services and network selection policy) depending on the infrastructure capabilities or agreements between the hosting networks and the infrastructure owner as spoken of on column 17, lines 2-20.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Shrivastava et al. (U.S. 2022/0256632) (hereinafter “Shrivastava”).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 18, Wang teaches claims 1, 11, and 16 as described above. While Wang also teaches where the WTRU may present the found network (via human readable information) that meets conditions to the user and allows the user to decide whether to select the network as spoken of on column 15, lines 63-65, Wang does not explicitly teach “the human readable information being compressed or represented by pre-agreed coding translated by the UE”.
However, Shrivastava teaches a method and network for providing access to localized services (PALS) where localized service is disseminated by a host network with a combination of multicast/broadcast and unicast delivery paths/modes addressing respectively common contents and customized personalized contents which can be integrated together (compressed) while receiving or presenting to a user as spoken of on page 19, paragraph [0251].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the compression/integration of localized service information taught in Shrivastava to the discovery information transmission of Wang in order to provide more efficiency in the transmission of control information, thereby improving the effective data rate of the system as spoken of on page 19, paragraphs [0249]-[0251] of Shrivastava.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches claim 1 as described above. While Wang also teaches where if the CAG ID broadcasted by the PALS network cell is configured in the WTRU’s allowed CAG list (whether network supports providing access to localized service), the WTRU will check the broadcasted CAG ID against the configured allowed ID list corresponding to the PALS network as spoken of on column 15, lines 42-45, Wang does not explicitly teach “wherein the discovery information is broadcasted in a system information block (SIB) message”.
However, Shrivastava teaches a method and network for providing access to localized services (PALS) where a service discovery mechanism is employed by UEs for services reception in the PALS network coverage by utilizing signaling such as SIB on demand, and where the broadcast signaling is performed by at least one of SIB-1, any other existing SIB, a new SIB, or SIB on demand as spoken of on page 19, paragraph [0257], and page 20, paragraph [0266].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the broadcast signaling using on demand SIB as taught in Shrivastava to the discovery information transmission of Wang in order to optimize 5G air interface resources by using on demand SIB to reduce overhead, thereby saving power and bandwidth as spoken on page 19, paragraph [0257] of Shrivastava.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Olvera-Hernandez et al. (WO 2021/092441) (hereinafter “Olvera”).
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches claim 1 as described above. Wang does not explicitly teach “the discovery information further indicating a server address of the AF, wherein the server address of the AF is broadcasted in a SIB message, or provided to UE via a user parameter update (UPU) procedure or a user configuration update (UCU) procedure, or a policy update procedure.
However, Olvera teaches a method and system for edge computing that supports local access to a data network as spoken of on page 15, paragraph [0075], where edge application server discovery is performed by configuring a WTRU with a mapping of application IDs to PLMN pairs via SIB messaging as spoken of on pages 18-19, paragraph [0095]; and where a WTRU may use an application ID to indicate to the network that an edge application server end-point address (server address) is to be provided to the WTRU as spoken of on page 19, paragraph [0097].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the application server address determination taught in Olvera to the discovery information transmission of Wang in order to improve the awareness of nodes in the network topology by providing explicit indication of application server addresses in control messaging, thereby potentially reducing delay in establishing connections and improving the user experienced QoS in the network as spoken of on page 19, paragraphs [0097]-[0098] of Olvera.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. 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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467