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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 3/15/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 9-11,13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “determining, by the terminal based on the network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, a target network to be accessed” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “a terminal” “at least one network” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (terminal) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “obtaining, by a terminal, network selection policy information, wherein the network selection policy information comprises a network identifier of at least one network and a network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, and the at least one network comprises at least one non-public network” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “network selection policy information” “network identifier” and “network selection condition comprises at least one of the following: time information, location information, or service parameter information” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network selection) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine target network.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “obtaining .. network selection policy information, wherein the network selection policy information comprises a network identifier of at least one network and a network selection condition” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (network selection) using a generic computer.
Other independent claim(s) (e.g., claim 18 [terminal/machine claim]) recite similar claim language and thus is/are rejected for the same reasons as that of claim 1.
Dependent claims 9-11,13,20 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15: is directed to idea of itself (abstract idea) without significantly more for the following reason(s):
Step 1: a process/method claim.
Step 2A, Prong 1: the limitations, “the network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network is used by the terminal to determine a target network to be accessed” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “network side device” “terminal” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (device, terminal) merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity.
The additional element, “sending, by a network-side device, network selection policy information to a terminal, wherein the network selection policy information comprises a network identifier of at least one network and a network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, the at least one network comprises at least one non-public network” is merely data gathering and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “network selection policy information” “network identifier” and “network selection condition comprises at least one of the following: time information, location information, or service parameter information” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (network selection) (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
When considered as a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to determine target network.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
under Step 2B, limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity under step 2A, Prong 2, need to be re-evaluated to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the limitation, “sending, ... network selection policy information to a terminal, wherein the network selection policy information comprises a network identifier of at least one network and a network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, the at least one network comprises at least one non-public network” is just receiving/transmitting data (e.g., over a network), which is mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention still fails to amount to significantly more than applying a judicial exception in a field of use (network selection) using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 16,17,19 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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) 1,9,10,13,15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2022/0060883).
Regarding claim 1:
Zhu discloses a network selection method (abstract; figures), comprising:
obtaining, by a terminal, network selection policy information, wherein the network selection policy information comprises a network identifier of at least one network and a network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, and the at least one network comprises at least one non-public network (para 3-10; para 179, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {… When a private network type is a standalone NPN, the private network identifier list is a standalone NPN ID list, and the terminal device may determine, based on a standalone NPN ID, whether to attempt to access a service provided by a standalone NPN network}; para 267 {a policy control network element is a PCF}); and
determining, by the terminal based on the network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, a target network to be accessed, wherein the network selection condition comprises at least one of the following: time information, location information, or service parameter information (para 18,53; para 28,212,236, 272,310 [time, area, location]; para 193 {… policy information may include a network selection policy and a routing policy. For example, the network selection policy may include the identifier of the private network (for example, an NPN ID) and an identifier of the public network (for example, a PLMN ID), and may further include information such as a network selection priority; the routing policy may indicate …}; para 194 {.. may further include the private network service type and the like.}; para 201-207; para 208 {when the private network type is the CAG, in step 208, the terminal device may determine, based on the operation mode (for example, allowed to access a CAG cell) and a CAG network selection policy (a CAG ID and priority information)..}; para 259 {when the private network type is the standalone NPN, in step 310, the terminal device may determine, based on the operation mode (for example, allowed to access a standalone NPN cell) and a standalone NPN network selection policy (a standalone NPN ID and priority information), whether to attempt to access a standalone NPN network}; figures 2-9; para 274,340,458; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 18:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 1, and further discloses a terminal (figures; fig 17), comprising a processor (para 73; fig 17 [block 1702]), a memory (figure 17 [block 1703]; para 394,397), and a program or instructions stored in the memory when executed by the processor (para 439-451; and throughout disclosure), causes the terminal to perform the steps or function as above, thus claim 18 is rejected with similar rationale under the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 15:
Zhu discloses a network selection method (abstract; figures), comprising:
sending, by a network-side device (figures), network selection policy information to a terminal, wherein the network selection policy information comprises a network identifier of at least one network and a network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network, the at least one network comprises at least one non-public network (para 3-18; para 53; para 179 {private network type is a standalone NPN, the private network identifier}; para 193 {first policy information may include a network selection policy and a routing policy. For example, the network selection policy may include the identifier of the private network (for example, an NPN ID) …}),
the network selection condition corresponding to the at least one network is used by the terminal to determine a target network to be accessed, and the network selection condition comprises at least one of the following: time information, location information, or service parameter information (see figures; para 28,212,236, 272,310 [time, area, location]; para 193-194 {further include the private network service type and the like.}; para 201-207; para 208 {when the private network type is the CAG, in step 208, the terminal device may determine, based on the operation mode (for example, allowed to access a CAG cell) and a CAG network selection policy (a CAG ID and priority information)..}; para 259 {when the private network type is the standalone NPN, in step 310, the terminal device may determine, based on the operation mode (for example, allowed to access a standalone NPN cell) and a standalone NPN network selection policy (a standalone NPN ID and priority information), whether to attempt to access a standalone NPN network}; figures 2-9; para 274,340,458; and see throughout the disclosure)).
Regarding claim 19:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 15, and further discloses a network side device (figures 14-16), comprising a processor (para 67-73; fig 14-16 [processor and memory]), a memory (figure 14-16; para 398-435), and a program or instructions stored in the memory when executed by the processor (para 398-435; and throughout disclosure), causes the terminal to perform the steps or function as above, thus claim 19 is rejected with similar rationale under the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding claim 20:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 1 and discloses a non-transitory readable storage medium (figures; para 397,510), wherein the non-transitory readable storage medium stores a program or instructions, and when the program or instructions are executed by a processor (figs 11-17; figs 20-22; para 401,417; and throughout disclosure), the steps of the network selection method according to claim 1 are implemented.
Regarding claim 9,16:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the network selection policy information is carried by at least one of the following: the network list controlled by the user; the network list controlled by the credential holder; the group identifier GIN list controlled by the credential holder; the UE route selection policy (URSP); a registration accept message; a session establishment accept message; or a non-access stratum (NAS) message ([note: optional claim language]; see Zhu, para 96,109,111 [credential information, and CAG identifier]; para 360 [NAS message]; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 10:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein after the obtaining, by a terminal, network selection policy information, the method further comprises: activating a conditional non-public network access mode; or, wherein before the determining a target network to be accessed, the method further comprises: activating a non-public network access mode, and determining that the target network to be accessed is a non-public network; or deactivating a non-public network access mode, and determining that the target network to be accessed is a public network ([note: optional claim language]; see Zhu, para 28,310 [condition]; and throughout disclosure).
Regarding claim 13,17:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above wherein the target network comprises at least one of the following: a standalone non-public network (SNPN), a public network integrated non-public network (PNI-NPN), or a public network; or, wherein the network selection policy information is preconfigured in the terminal or comes from a network device in a home network of the terminal or a device of a service provider to which the terminal belongs ([note: optional claim language]; see Zhu, para 96,105,458 [SNPN, PNI-NPN]; and throughout disclosure).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2022/0060883) in view of Sasi et al. (US 2022/0225093).
Regarding claim 11:
Zhu discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that when the network selection condition of the target network is no longer met, deactivating a non-public network access mode, wherein the target network is a non-public network; or when the network selection condition of the target network is no longer met, activating a non-public network access mode, wherein the target network is a public network.
However, Sasi in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for nonpublic networks wherein when the network selection condition of the target network is no longer met, deactivating a non-public network access mode, wherein the target network is a non-public network; or when the network selection condition of the target network is no longer met, activating a non-public network access mode, wherein the target network is a public network ([note: optional claim language]; see para 224 {activate the dedicated USIM application for which it has received the subscriber identifier and credentials. In order to do so, the UE will have to keep a list of the combination of PLMN ID and NPN ID and the appropriate USIM/NSIM to be activated }; para 150,215-217, 223-224; para 347; and throughout disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Sasi in Zhu in order to provide authentication of public and nonpublic network with subscriptions and security credentials [3,35-37] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8,12,14 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.
Wang (US 2021/0385739) discloses a system and method for network access control.
Hong (US 2024/0236837) discloses a system and method for network selection information transmission.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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 S Wang can be reached on (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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631