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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s remarks have been given full consideration, as such this Office Action has been modified in view of Amendments filed on 05/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed "Remarks" on 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claim 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant alleges that: “amended claim 7 recites that the subscriber-specific roaming policy for the roaming UE device differentiates between one or more service levels that the UE device may access on the visited network.” However, Sahin teaches as such [0060] “depending on various reasons such as roaming agreements, cost of roaming, or type of allowed services (data, voice, data+voice) during roaming, spread of roaming subscribers into multiple roaming partner SNPNs in a given area or country, an SNPN operator (or a PLMN operator) may need to control its roaming subscribers (such as user 108 and corresponding communication device 121) and which roaming partner's SNPN the communication device 121 should connect to,” i.e. the UE is capable of differentiating between different roaming agreements, wherein said roaming agreements may include information such as allowed services, i.e. different service levels for the UE.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahin et al. (US 2022/0070649 A1, hereinafter Sahin) in view of Zheng (US 2009/0276827 A1, hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 1, Sahin teaches receiving, by a network device in a visited network ([Figure 1, device 121/122] and [0070] the communication device 121/122 communicates a communication link 127/128 request to the wireless base station 131,132 and/or 133, and [0068] when in wireless range of wireless base station 132, the communication device 121/122 has access to the remote network 190, i.e. remote network 190 is a visited network receiving data from a network device 121/122), a roaming request for a user equipment (UE) device to connect to the visited network ([Figure 8, operation 805] and [0132] a UE (device 121/122) sending a REGISTRATION REQUEST message (communications 805) to the visited network); and when the home network for the UE device has subscriber-specific roaming policies ([0142] if the HPLMN/HSNPN policy for the SOR-AF invocation is present, then the HPLMN/HSNPN UDM obtains the list of preferred SNPN/access technology combinations (roaming control information in list 265 of FIG. 2) or the secured packet from the SOR-AF using operations 3b and 3c (such as communications 830 and 832), i.e. the UE 121/122 includes a subscriber-specific roaming polices, additionally, [0063] specifically states “the table 165 (list of wireless networks, policy information),” i.e. a plurality of polices): sending a second AM policy association request to the home network ([Figure 1/5] and [0114] describes how a AM policy association requests or other unique network identifiers may be sent to the communication management resource 142 of the home network 190, and depicted in FIG. 8 operation 830); receiving from the home network a subscriber-specific roaming policy for the roaming UE device ([0099] FIG. 5 includes a depiction of registration path 172 (such as a SIP signaling path) supporting registration and establishment of requested connectivity, such as AM policy information, and depicted in FIG. 8 operation 832, additionally, [0077] specifically states “the communication management resource 142 performs a look-up in table 165 (policy information) to determine if the private wireless network 192 is authorized to support roaming services to the user 108 of the second private wireless network 192,” in association with “roaming support agreement,” i.e. a subscriber-specific roaming policy being received via another network, which may be the home network of the roaming UE device); and sending- -an AM policy association response to the first AM policy association request ([Figure 8, operation 840] depicts sending the AM policy association response from the home network to the roaming network’s AM module (depicted as VSNPN AMF)).
Sahin is not relied on for the claim language determining, by the network device and based on a home network identifier from a first access and mobility (AM) policy association request, whether a home network for the UE device has subscriber-specific roaming policies for the visited network or a general roaming policy for the visited network; -based on receiving the subscriber-specific roaming policy-. However, Zheng teaches [abstract] a method and apparatus for network access control (NAC) in roaming services, in association with receiving roaming access policies. Zheng also teaches determining, by the network device and based on a home network identifier from a first access and mobility (AM) policy association request ([Figure 3, step 304] and [0058] describes “the home AAA (Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting) server, after receiving an authentication request sent from the AAA server on the visited network where the access terminal roams, authenticates the current user according to the ID carried in the authentication request, and returns an "authentication passed" message to the AAA server on the visited network after the user passes authentication,” i.e. the visited network requests from the Home AAA AM policy information, AM policy information read as authentication policy request, additionally, [0061] describes the determination may be based on AAA access policies and a plurality of IDs), whether a home network for the UE device has subscriber-specific roaming policies for the visited network or a general roaming policy for the visited network ([Figure 3, step 305] and [00590] describes “the AAA server on the visited network, after receiving the authentication information sent from the home AAA server, obtains the roaming quarantine ACL configured for the roaming terminal,” i.e. the visited network determines whether the home network for the UE device has a subscriber-specific roaming policy, and whether said policy is allowed or needs to be updated at the UE); -based on receiving the subscriber-specific roaming policy- (as described above and in Figure 3, step 305, the visited network receives roaming policy information from the Home network in association with subscriber information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the visiting network in accordance with a specific order of elements listed within the claim as described above, as taught by Zheng, in order to [abstract] allow each branch network to enforce and update access policies as needed without restrictions of network identification and adaptation, making it easier to implement NAC on a distributed network, and improving NAC development, thus [0063] improving processing efficiency and [0006] allowing the access terminal to access other network resources.
Regarding claim 2, Sahin teaches applying the general roaming policy for the roaming UE device, when the home network for the UE device does not have a subscriber-specific roaming policy ([0133] describes when the VSNPN AMF does not have subscription data for the UE, the VSNPN AMF invokes Nudm_SDM_Get service operation to the HPLMN/HSNPN UDM to get amongst other information the Access and Mobility Subscription data for the UE, i.e. if the UE does not have specific subscriber related roaming policies, other general information may be requested, i.e. a general roaming policy).
Regarding claim 3, Sahin teaches the network device includes an AM-policy control function (PCF) ([0091-0092] the communication management resources 141/142 may include a plurality of modules, such as hardware and software resources such as "V-NSSF (Visited-Network Slice Selection Function), V-PCF (Visited Policy Control Function), AMF (Access and Mobility Management Function), V-SMF (Visited-Session Management Function), RAN (Radio Access Network), and UPF (User Plane Function)" and "AUSF (Authentication Server Function), UDM (Unified Data Management), H-NSSF (Home-Network Slice Selection Function), H-SMF (Visited-Session Management Function), H-PCF (Home- Policy Control Function), AF (Application Function), and UPF (User Plane Function)," i.e. AM policy control function PCF may be present).
Regarding claim 4, Sahin teaches sending the second AM policy association request ([Figure 8, operation 830]) includes: sending the second AM policy association request to an AM-PCF in the home network ([Figure 7] depicts a second AM policy association request being sent to request policy association to the home network communication management resource 142, which may include an AM-policy control function PCF [0091-0092] as described in claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, Sahin teaches sending the second AM policy association request ([Figure 8, operation 830]) includes: sending the second AM policy association request via a modified N24 interface ([0113] transmissions in accordance with policy association may be sent via N24 signaling, or a similar technique).
Regarding claim 6, Sahin teaches determining whether the home network for the UE device has subscriber-specific roaming policies ([Figure 8, operation 825] and [0139-0140 and 0148] describes how step 3a (operation 825) determines, based on indicators from the UE, whether the home network for the UE device has a subscriber-specific roaming policy) includes: -multiple Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifiers (IDs) associated with a policy association approach ([0048] describes information may be used such as PLMN identifiers (IDs) in association with a policy and [0057] FIG. 1 depicts table 165 (network affiliation information) of repository 180 used for storing policy associated information or identifiers), and matching a home PLMN ID of the UE device with one of the PLMN IDs ([0063] FIG. 1, shows the table 165 (list of wireless networks, policy information) indicates other private wireless networks in the wireless network environment 100 that support guest wireless services/connectivity to the members of the (home) private wireless network 192, i.e. the ability to match/compare home PLMN IDs of the UE).
Sahin is not relied on for the -storing, in a memory of the network device-. However, Zheng teaches as such ([0042] “access policies used in this invention can be implemented by configuring Access Control Lists (ACLs) or Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs). If ACLs are used, the roaming quarantine ACL and roaming secure ACL are configured on the access device, while corresponding identification information is configured on the authentication server and the security policy server respectively. To apply an ACL to the roaming terminal, the local authentication server or local security policy server delivers the identification information of the roaming quarantine ACL or roaming secure ACL to the access device,” i.e. Access Control Lists, which would include network IDs according to [0041], are stored in memory on the access device, access device read as network device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahin to include the ability to store lists that include network IDs in memory on the network device, as taught by Zheng, in order to [abstract] allow each branch network to enforce and update access policies as needed without restrictions of network identification and adaptation, making it easier to implement NAC on a distributed network, and improving NAC development, thus [0063] improving processing efficiency and [0006] allowing the access terminal to access other network resources.
Regarding claim 7, Sahin teaches the subscriber-specific roaming policy for the roaming UE device differentiates between one or more service levels that the UE device may access on the visited network ([0189] describes the AM policy for the roaming UE device may be associated with different service/priority levels of registration, additionally [0060] describes “depending on various reasons such as roaming agreements, cost of roaming, or type of allowed services (data, voice, data+voice) during roaming, spread of roaming subscribers into multiple roaming partner SNPNs in a given area or country, an SNPN operator (or a PLMN operator) may need to control its roaming subscribers (such as user 108 and corresponding communication device 121) and which roaming partner's SNPN the communication device 121 should connect to,” i.e. the UE is capable of differentiating between different roaming agreements, wherein said roaming agreements may include information such as allowed services, i.e. different service levels for the UE).
Regarding claim 8, Sahin teaches sending a second AM policy association request to the home network ([Figure 8, operation 830]) includes: sending a unique identifier of the UE device ([0110] describes how there may be a unique identifier associated with the UE device 121/122, i.e. unique device identifier value=XXXX).
Regarding claim 9, Sahin teaches sending the AM policy association response ([Figure 8, operation 832] depicts the policy association response from the guest network) includes: sending the AM policy association response to an access and mobility management function (AMF) in the visited network ([Figure 8, operation 835] depicts the response for the AMF in the visited network).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Sahin teaches one or more network devices ([Figure 1, device 121/122]), comprising: one or more processors configured execute instructions to: receive- (devices 121 and 122 may include [0020-0023] processors capable of executing instructions to receive/transmit data).
Regarding claim 11, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Sahin teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing instructions executable by at least one processor of a device, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more instructions for: receiving- ([0021] a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may be included in association with [0020-0023] instructions executable by at least one processor of a device to receive/transmit data).
Regarding claim 18, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 4.
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 MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. EST.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649
/GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights