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 Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/10/2026 regarding claims 1-20 in the remarks are fully considered but moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 15, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasiva (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0056890) in view of Arnott (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0358829).
As per claim 15:
Sadasiva teaches a method for wireless communications at a first network entity (see paragraph [0005], teaches a method of routing traffic between a 5th generation NR (RAN) and a 5G Core Network. Note: For examination purposes, examiner is reading said Session Management Function (SMF) device 112-1 disclosed in paragraph [0070] for example as said first network entity), comprising:
transmitting first information that indicates one or more first services supported by the first network entity, wherein the one or more first services are associated with a first network operator (see Figure 9, step 906, paragraph [0070], the UE device receives a first Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) rule corresponding to a first type of traffic for a first type of service and a first steering mode information including a first network indicator corresponding to the mobile network operator (MNO) from SMF device 112-1. Note: As explained earlier in paragraph [0070], examiner is reading said SMF device 112-1 as said first network entity);
transmitting second information that indicates one or more second services supported by the first network entity, wherein the one or more second services are associated with a second network operator (see Figure 9, step 908, paragraph [0071], the UE device also receives a second ATSSS rule with second traffic descriptor information corresponding to a second type of traffic for a second type of service and a second steering mode information including a second mobile network indicator corresponding to a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) from said SMF device 112-1); and
providing at least one service of the one or more first services or the one or more second services to a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph [0072], step 910, UE device processes the ATSSS rules received at 906 and 908 in order to determine the order in which the rules can be evaluated), wherein provision of the at least one service is based at least in part on the UE being associated with the first network operator or the second network operator (see paragraph [0073], if the first ATSSS rule is “Traffic Descriptor: UDP, DestPort Port-1”, “Steering Mode: Active-Standby, Active=3GPP-2, Standby=3GPP-1”, the UE device 102 determines that UDP traffic with destination IP Port Port-1 is to be steered to the active access (3GPP-2), if available. At step 912, the UE transmit the first type of traffic for the first type of service corresponding to the first traffic descriptor included in the first ATSSS rule received at 906 to first 3GPP access network operated by the MNO, please see paragraph [0075]. The same procedure also applies for transmitting a second type of traffic of the second type of service included in the second ATSSS rule corresponding the second MVNO, please see paragraph [0076]).
Sadasiva does not teach and wherein both the first network operator and the second network operator are supported by the first network entity.
Arnott teaches and wherein both the first network operator and the second network operator are supported by the first network entity (see paragraph [0075], shared base station 5 (construed as said first network entity) might be jointly owned and operated by two or more operators. In any case, operators A, B, and C agree to share in the capacity of the shared eNB5 such that any mobile telephone 3-A associated with operator A, a mobile telephone 3-B associated with operator B, and a mobile telephone 3-C associated with operator C are able to connect to the network via the shared eNB5 as though connecting equipment provided by their own respective network operator).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the ability of a base station to share/support the operations of different network operators (as disclosed in Arnott) into Sadasiva as a way of enabling the base station to connect to any mobile telephones associated with any of the network operators as though the base station belongs to the respective network operators (please see paragraph [0073] of Arnott). Therefore, such arrangement may be particularly useful for example in areas of low population density or more generally areas having low bandwidth requirements, in order to allow each network operator to provide their respective service to that area without requiring any of the network operators to install their own RAN in that area (please see paragraph [0074] of Arnott).
As per claim 17:
Sadasiva further teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first information further comprises an identifier of the first network operator and the second information further comprises an identifier of the second network operator (see paragraphs [0070], [0071], the first and second ATSS rules each contain an indication of the network indicators corresponding to the respective MNO).
As per claim 20:
Sadasiva teaches a first network entity for wireless communications (see Figure 8, small cell 805), comprising:
means for transmitting first information (see paragraph [0070], first ATSSS rule) … that indicates one or more first services supported by the first network entity, wherein the one or more first services are associated with a first network operator (see Figure 9, step 906, paragraph [0070], the UE device receives a first Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) rule corresponding to a first type of traffic for a first type of service and a first steering mode information including a first network indicator corresponding to the mobile network operator (MNO) from SMF device 112-1. Note: As explained earlier in paragraph [0070], examiner is reading said SMF device 112-1 as said first network entity);
means for transmitting second information (see paragraph [0071], second ATSSS rule)… that indicates one or more second services supported by the first network entity, wherein the one or more second services are associated with a second network operator (see Figure 9, step 908, paragraph [0071], the UE device also receives a second ATSSS rule with second traffic descriptor information corresponding to a second type of traffic for a second type of service and a second steering mode information including a second mobile network indicator corresponding to a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) from said SMF device 112-1);
and
means for providing at least one service of the one or more first services or the one or more second services to a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph [0072], step 910, UE device processes the ATSSS rules received at 906 and 908 in order to determine the order in which the rules can be evaluated), wherein provision of the at least one service is based at least in part on the UE being associated with the first network operator or the second network operator (see paragraph [0073], if the first ATSSS rule is “Traffic Descriptor: UDP, DestPort Port-1”, “Steering Mode: Active-Standby, Active=3GPP-2, Standby=3GPP-1”, the UE device 102 determines that UDP traffic with destination IP Port Port-1 is to be steered to the active access (3GPP-2), if available. At step 912, the UE transmit the first type of traffic for the first type of service corresponding to the first traffic descriptor included in the first ATSSS rule received at 906 to first 3GPP access network operated by the MNO, please see paragraph [0075]. The same procedure also applies for transmitting a second type of traffic of the second type of service included in the second ATSSS rule corresponding the second MVNO, please see paragraph [0076]).
Sadasiva does not teach and wherein both the first network operator and the second network operator are supported by the first network entity.
Arnott teaches and wherein both the first network operator and the second network operator are supported by the first network entity (see paragraph [0075], shared base station 5 (construed as said first network entity) might be jointly owned and operated by two or more operators. In any case, operators A, B, and C agree to share in the capacity of the shared eNB5 such that any mobile telephone 3-A associated with operator A, a mobile telephone 3-B associated with operator B, and a mobile telephone 3-C associated with operator C are able to connect to the network via the shared eNB5 as though connecting equipment provided by their own respective network operator).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the ability of a base station to share/support the operations of different network operators (as disclosed in Arnott) into Sadasiva as a way of enabling the base station to connect to any mobile telephones associated with any of the network operators as though the base station belongs to the respective network operators (please see paragraph [0073] of Arnott). Therefore, such arrangement may be particularly useful for example in areas of low population density or more generally areas having low bandwidth requirements, in order to allow each network operator to provide their respective service to that area without requiring any of the network operators to install their own RAN in that area (please see paragraph [0074] of Arnott).
4. Claim(s) 1, 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasiva in view of He (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0097772) and further in view of Arnott.
As per claim 1:
Sadasiva teaches a first network entity (see paragraph [0005], SMF 112-1);
transmit first information (see paragraph [0070], first ATSSS rule) that indicates one or more first services supported by the first network entity, wherein the one or more first services are associated with a first network operator (see Figure 9, step 906, paragraph [0070], the UE device receives a first Access Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting (ATSSS) rule corresponding to a first type of traffic for a first type of service and a first steering mode information including a first network indicator corresponding to the mobile network operator (MNO) from SMF device 112-1. Note: As explained earlier in paragraph [0070], examiner is reading said SMF device 112-1 as said first network entity);
transmit second information (see paragraph [0071], second ATSSS rule) that indicates one or more second services supported by the first network entity, wherein the one or more second services are associated with a second network operator (see Figure 9, step 908, paragraph [0071], the UE device also receives a second ATSSS rule with second traffic descriptor information corresponding to a second type of traffic for a second type of service and a second steering mode information including a second mobile network indicator corresponding to a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) from said SMF device 112-1);
and
provide at least one service of the one or more first services or the one or more second services to a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph [0072], step 910, UE device processes the ATSSS rules received at 906 and 908 in order to determine the order in which the rules can be evaluated), wherein provision of the at least one service is based at least in part on the UE being associated with the first network operator or the second network operator (see paragraph [0073], if the first ATSSS rule is “Traffic Descriptor: UDP, DestPort Port-1”, “Steering Mode: Active-Standby, Active=3GPP-2, Standby=3GPP-1”, the UE device 102 determines that UDP traffic with destination IP Port Port-1 is to be steered to the active access (3GPP-2), if available. At step 912, the UE transmit the first type of traffic for the first type of service corresponding to the first traffic descriptor included in the first ATSSS rule received at 906 to first 3GPP access network operated by the MNO, please see paragraph [0075]. The same procedure also applies for transmitting a second type of traffic of the second type of service included in the second ATSSS rule corresponding the second MVNO, please see paragraph [0076]).
Sadasiva does not clearly teach comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code;
and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and indivually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to: as claimed.
He, on the other hand teaches, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see paragraph [0245], disclose memory for storing instructions and executable by processor);
and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to (see Figure 14, processor 810 is coupled to memory 820. The processor 810 executes instruction stored in memory 820 for causing the apparatus to perform functions such as steering multipath communication in the at least one user plane session, please see paragraphs [0245], [0250]. Note: Apparatus 800 as disclosed in Figure 14 could be a Session Management Function (SMF), please see paragraph [0249]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the memory and processor as components of SMF (as disclosed in He) into Sadasiva as a way of enabling the device to perform several operations such as establishment of multiple paths between a communication function element and at least one user plane function (please see paragraph [0250] of He).
Sadasiva and He do not teach and wherein both the first network operator and the second network operator are supported by the first network entity.
Arnott teaches and wherein both the first network operator and the second network operator are supported by the first network entity (see paragraph [0075], shared base station 5 (construed as said first network entity) might be jointly owned and operated by two or more operators. In any case, operators A, B, and C agree to share in the capacity of the shared eNB5 such that any mobile telephone 3-A associated with operator A, a mobile telephone 3-B associated with operator B, and a mobile telephone 3-C associated with operator C are able to connect to the network via the shared eNB5 as though connecting equipment provided by their own respective network operator).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the ability of a base station to share/support the operations of different network operators (as disclosed in Arnott) into Sadasiva and He as a way of enabling the base station to connect to any mobile telephones associated with any of the network operators as though the base station belongs to the respective network operators (please see paragraph [0073] of Arnott). Therefore, such arrangement may be particularly useful for example in areas of low population density or more generally areas having low bandwidth requirements, in order to allow each network operator to provide their respective service to that area without requiring any of the network operators to install their own RAN in that area (please see paragraph [0074] of Arnott).
As per claim 4:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott teaches the first network entity of claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises an identifier of the first network operator and the second information further comprises an identifier of the second network operator (Sadasiva, see paragraphs [0070], [0071], the first and second ATSS rules each contain an indication of the network indicators corresponding to the respective MNO).
As per claim 11:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott teaches the first network entity of claim 1, wherein: connecting the UE to the first network entity (Sadasiva, see paragraph [0068], UE connects to a 3GPP access network operated by a first mobile network operator. Note: Said 3GPP is communicatively coupled to an AMF, a non-3GPP access network and a SMF device. Thus, it is evident that the UE is connected to the SMF device);
transmitting one or more paging messages (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record);
facilitating communications with a third network entity (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record);
or transmitting assistance information associated with the third network
entity (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record).
5. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott and Mueck (US PG Pub. No. 2015/0156621).
As per claim 9:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott teaches the first network entity of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to:
transmit third information that indicates a plurality of physical cell identifiers associated with the same network operator that is associated with the UE.
Mueck teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to:
transmit third information that indicates a plurality of physical cell identifiers associated with the same network operator that is associated with the UE (see paragraph [0081], the UE might be informed about an MNO preferred PCI subsets for HeNBs by means of smart card device).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the reservation of an arbitrary number of physical cell identifiers by a mobile network operator (as disclosed in Mueck) into Sadasiva, He, and Arnott as a way of reducing synchronization complexity for mobile radio terminals targeting communication with mobile radio base stations (please see paragraph [0080] of Mueck).
As per claim 10:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott and Mueck teaches the first network entity of claim 9.
Sadasiva, He and Arnott do not teach wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to:
transmit fourth information that indicates a plurality of physical cell identifiers associated with a network operator different than the network operator associated with the UE.
Mueck teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the first network entity to:
transmit fourth information that indicates a plurality of physical cell identifiers associated with a network operator different than the network operator associated with the UE (see Figure 6, paragraph [0096], disclose first PCI value range 602 may be associated with BS type A while second PCI value range 604 may be associated with BS type B. Paragraph [0025] also disclose, MNO_A may choose to deploy a PCI value range different from the one a second MNO_B uses).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the reservation of an arbitrary number of physical cell identifiers by a mobile network operator (as disclosed in Mueck) into Sadasiva, He, and Arnott as a way of reducing synchronization complexity for mobile radio terminals targeting communication with mobile radio base stations (please see paragraph [0080] of Mueck).
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott and Chandrashekar (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0227571).
As per claim 12:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott teaches the first network entity of claim 11 with the exception of:
wherein the assistance information comprises synchronization raster points, frequency information, wake-up signaling configuration information, or any combination thereof.
Chandrashekar teaches wherein the assistance information comprises synchronization raster points (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record), frequency information (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record), wake-up signaling configuration information (see paragraph [0042], the UE may be provided with C-DRX configuration by an operator of the network. The C-DRX configuration enables the UE to wake up and monitor PDCCH during 10ms on-duration once every 160ms), or any combination thereof (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art(s) of record).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the C-DRX configuration (as disclosed in Chandrashekar into both Sadasiva, He and Arnott as a way of enhancing performance by conserving power while staying connected to and remaining synchronized with the network (please see paragraphs [0042]-[0043] of Chandrashekar).
7. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott and Adjakple (US PG Pub. No. 2013/0225123).
As per claim 13:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott teaches the first network entity of claim 1 with the exception of:
wherein the one or more second services are a subset of the one or more first services.
Adjakple teaches wherein the one or more second services are a subset of the one or more first services (see paragraph [0123], the universal PLMN/MNO 1112 may register 1127 the WTRU 1110 for a subset of services that are provided by the MNO 1114).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the use of multiple services for each mobile network operator (as disclosed in Adjakple) into both Sadasiva, He and Arnott as a way of providing the increased flexibility of providing different services to the WTRU thereby enhancing network access (please see paragraph [0080] of Adjakple).
As per claim 14:
Sadasiva in view of He and further in view of Arnott and Adjakple teaches the first network entity of claim 13.
Sadasiva, He and Arnott do not clearly teach wherein the one or more second services are based at least in part on a timer duration, one or more periodic time periods, or any combination thereof.
Adjakple teaches wherein the one or more second services are based at least in part on a timer duration, one or more periodic time periods, or any combination thereof (see paragraph [0124], the universal PLMN/MNO 1112 may save the profile of the WTRU 1110 in the same way the MNO 1114 saves it. For example, identities, security contexts, timers, or allowed services may be saved in the universal PLMN/MNO 1112).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the use of multiple services for each mobile network operator (as disclosed in Adjakple) into Sadasiva, He and Arnott as a way of providing the increased flexibility of providing different services to the WTRU thereby enhancing network access (please see paragraph [0080] of Adjakple).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 16, 18 and 19 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
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 PRINCE AKWASI MENSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
PRINCE AKWASI. MENSAH
Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/PRINCE A MENSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights