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
Prior to examination, claims 1-15 have been canceled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GR20210100529, filed on August 4, 2021. This application claims priority to PCT/EP2021/074875 filed September 9, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that NPL entries 3-6 contain citations of references that do not comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.98(b)(5) which requires "Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication." The Examiner is unable to timely consider the various coding standards and working drafts of said coding standard in their entirety as they comprise hundreds of pages.
The Examiner encourages resubmission with the pertinent portions of these references pointed out. Accordingly, the references have been placed on the record, but have not been considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the terms Bluetooth®, ZigBee, Sigfoxx, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
The examiner is interpreting a network function as software. As per independent claims 16 and 23, “a first network function" and "a method performed by a first network function” respectively are recited. However, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret the system as software, per se. According to the instant specification, "an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.)” (par. 0017). Such language points to software per se when there is no language in the claim or specification by which the claim elements can be made functional and statutory. A person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the limitations to mean merely computer executable functions, rendering the claimed apparatus comprising merely executable functions, which is non-statutory. As such, claims 16-22 and 23-29 are drawn to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.01.
Examiner suggests amending claim 16 to “a first network function device" and claim 23 to "a method performed by a first network function device”.
Claims 30-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 30-35 fall within a statutory category of machine.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 30-35 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 30:
A user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
transmit a registration request message to a network function, wherein the registration request message comprises an indication for disaster roaming registration; and
receive a UE registration area from the network function, wherein the UE registration area is associated with the disaster roaming registration.
(Additional elements appearing in bold analyzed in Steps 2A,2B below)
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise responding to a request with information related to a target, receiving a frequency and responding based on the frequency.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. transmitting and receiving information). Examiner notes mental process includes describe mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. graphing, mapping, calculations), as noted in the case law cited above.
Claim 34 contains the same process steps as claim 30, performed using general purpose computer.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 30 appear in bold and account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e. ‘user equipment’) defined generally and are mere generic entities such as “request” or “indication” and “message” constitute mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “request” or “indication” and “message” without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 31-33 and 35
Dependent claims recite additional elements: type of network function of claim 31, disaster condition of claims 32 and 35, and registration area of claim 33.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus, the claims are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 31-33 and 35 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
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) 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferdi et al. (US 20240205658 A1 Ferdi).
Regarding claim 30, Ferdi a user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory (Fig. 1B, elements 130 and 132); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (In addition, the processor 118 may access information from i.e. coupled to, and store data in, any type of suitable memory, such as the non-removable memory 130 and/or the removable memory 132.):
transmit a registration request message to a network function, wherein the registration request message comprises an indication for disaster roaming registration (“the WTRU i.e. the UE 102 may send, to the AMF 182 of PMLN A i.e. the first network , a registration request including information indicating a DIR indication (e.g., to indicate the WTRU 102 is a disaster inbound roamer (e.g., a WTRU 102 that is roaming from a PLMN that is experiencing a disaster/non-operational condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-2); and
receive a UE registration area from the network function, wherein the UE registration area is associated with the disaster roaming registration (“the AMF 182 i.e. the first network function of the PLMN A may send, to the WTRU 102, a WTRU configuration command including information indicating a CAG list of CAGs allowed for DIR i.e. the registration area for disaster roaming service in the PLMN A i.e. the first network.”[0088], Fig. 2 element 2-6).
Regarding claim 34, Ferdi suggests all the limitations of claim 30 in machine form, i.e. a processor, rather than device form. Ferdi also discloses a machine (”(In addition, the processor 118 may access information from i.e. coupled to, and store data in, any type of suitable memory…” [0036]Fig. 1B, element 118). Therefore, the rejection of claim 30 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 34.
Regarding claim 31, Ferdi discloses all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the first network function comprises an access and mobility management function (AMF) (Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) i.e. the AMF being the first network function” see [0063] and Fig. 1D elements 182a and 182b).
Regarding claim 32 and claim 35, Ferdi discloses all the limitations of claim 30 and 34, respectively, as discussed above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the UE registration area comprises an area with a disaster condition (“the PLMN A may not have any CAG cells available in the disaster condition affected area i.e. the registration area…”[0098]).
Regarding claim 33, Ferdi discloses all the limitations of claim 30, as discussed above. Ferdi also discloses wherein the UE registration area is determined based on the subscription data for the disaster roaming service associated with the disaster roaming registration (during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR i.e. the disaster roaming registration, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5, also see [0106]).
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.
Claim(s) 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferdi et al. (US 20240205658 A1 Ferdi) in view of Chun et al. (US 20240205868 A1 and Chun hereinafter).
Regarding claim 16, Ferdi teaches a first network function (“Each of the gNBs 180a, 180b, 180c may be associated with a particular cell (not shown) and may be configured to handle radio resource management decisions, handover decisions, scheduling of users in the UL and/or DL, support of network slicing, dual connectivity, interworking between NR and E-UTRA, routing of user plane data towards User Plane Function (UPF) 184a, 184b, routing of control plane information towards Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) i.e. the AMF being the first network function” see [0063] and Fig. 1D elements 182a and 182b), comprising:
at least one memory (“Examples of non-transitory computer-readable storage media include, but are not limited to, a read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, semiconductor memory devices, magnetic media such as internal hard disks and removable disks, magneto-optical media, and optical media such as CD-ROM disks, and digital versatile disks (DVDs)” [0143]); and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first network function to (“In addition, the methods described herein may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware incorporated in a computer readable medium for execution by a computer or processor… A processor in association with software may be used to implement configured to a radio frequency transceiver for use in a WTRU, UE, terminal, base station, RNC, or any host computer.” [0143]):
receive a registration request message from a user equipment (UE) (“the WTRU i.e. the UE (Fig. 1D, element 102) may send, to the AMF 182 of PMLN A, a registration request”[0086]), wherein the registration request message comprises an indication for disaster roaming registration (“the WTRU i.e. the UE 102 may send, to the AMF 182 of PMLN A i.e. the first network , a registration request including information indicating a DIR indication (e.g., to indicate the WTRU 102 is a disaster inbound roamer (e.g., a WTRU 102 that is roaming from a PLMN that is experiencing a disaster/non-operational condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-2);
transmit, to a second network function, a request for UE subscription data, wherein the request comprises an indication for a disaster roaming service (“the AMF 182 of the PLMN A may send an authentication/registration request to an authentication service function (AUSF) and/or a unified data management (UDM) i.e. the UDM being the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. the second network (e.g., of the PLMN experiencing the disaster/non-operating condition).”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-3); and
receive, from the second network function, a response comprising subscription data for the disaster roaming service (“the AUSF/UDM 210 i.e. the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. the second network may send an authentication/registration response including the DIR indication and/or the CAG list of allowed CAGs i.e. the subscription data in the PLMN A. For example, during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5,).
Ferdi doesn’t explicitly teach
determine, based on the indication, that the registration request message is associated with the disaster roaming registration.
However, Chun teaches
determine, based on the indication, that the registration request message (“the method comprises performing a registration to a first public land mobile network (PLMN) via a first base station; receiving a disaster related message indicating that a disaster roaming service is provided”[0008, see also [0009-0012] for data provided within disaster message) is associated with the disaster roaming registration (“Check i.e. determine whether the UE is provided with disaster roaming service”, Fig.13 elements S1301, S1303 and S1305);
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Ferdi with Chun. The motivation would be so disaster related message indicating that the disaster roaming service is provided., Chun at [0009].
Claim 23 Ferdi in view of Chun, hereinafter Ferdi-Chun, teach all the limitations of claim 16 in method formFerdi also discloses a device (“the disclosed embodiments contemplate any number of WTRUs, base stations, networks, and/or network elements. Each of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, 102d may be any type of device configured to operate and/or communicate in a wireless environment.”[0018]). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 23.
Regarding claims 17 and 24, Ferdi-Chun teaches all the limitations of claims 16 and 23, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the first network function comprises an access and mobility management function (AMF) (Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) i.e. the AMF being the first network function” see [0063] and Fig. 1D elements 182a and 182b).
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Ferdi-Chun teaches all the limitations of claims 16 and 23, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the second network function comprises a unified data management (UDM) (“unified data management (UDM) i.e. the second network function of the PLMN D i.e. second network ...”[0086]).
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Ferdi-Chun teaches all the limitations of claims 16 and 23, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first network function to determine a UE registration area (“For a CAG-only WTRU 102 that is accessing or is allowed to access one or more non-CAG cells in a PLMN (e.g., the PLMN A), the following issues may arise for the WTRU 102 including how a CAG-only WTRU 102 may access a non-CAG cell in the PLMN A.”[0098]).
Regarding claims 20 and 27, Ferdi teaches all the limitations of claims 19 and 26, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the UE registration area comprises an area with a disaster condition (“the PLMN A may not have any CAG cells available in the disaster condition affected area i.e. the registration area…”[0098]).
Regarding claims 21 and 28, Ferdi-Chun teaches all the limitations of claims 21 and 26, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the UE registration area is determined based on the subscription data for the disaster roaming service (during the registration procedure with the PLMN A i.e. the first network, when the WTRU 102 i.e. the UE indicates that the WTRU 102 is registering for DIR, the PLMN A may request the PLMN D to provide mapping information/a list of allowed CAG IDs i.e. the subscription data. The PLMN A may send the supported CAG IDs for a cell to the PLMN D. The PLMN D may check the allowed CAG IDs of the WTRU 102 and may send, to the PLMN A, the mapping information for mapping among or between the supported CAG IDs and the allowed CAG IDs.”[0086] Fig. 2 element 2-5, also see [0106]).
Regarding claims 22 and 29, Ferdi-Chun teaches all the limitations of claims 21 and 26, as discussed above. Ferdi also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the first network function to transmit the UE registration area to the UE (“the AMF 182 i.e. the first network function of the PLMN A may send, to the WTRU 102, a WTRU configuration command including information indicating a CAG list of CAGs allowed for DIR i.e. the registration area for disaster roaming service in the PLMN A i.e. the first network.”[0088], Fig. 2 element 2-6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watfa (US 20240147207 A1) which teaches methods for a UE to temporarily make use of the services of another network on which it is referred to as a Disaster Roamer in the event of a disaster condition.
Guttman (US20220248304 A1, attached WO 2021015597 A1) which teaches method of operating a second telecommunication network to manage access of Disaster Inbound Roamers
Qiao (WO 2021007447 A1) which teaches an AMF for a first PLMN receives status information for a network disaster indication and an identifier of the second PLMN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/ALISON SLATER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647