DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ryu fails to disclose the UE 100 context is for different PLMNS. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim only mentions about a first access and a second access for a first PLMN. A second PLMN is not exist in the independent claims 1, 6 and 11.
Applicant argues that Kuge discloses, paragraph 051, the storage unit is different records of the 5GS NAS. The Examiner does not rely on multiple storage units in the user phone. The Examiner relies on identification information, control information, flags, parameters reads on multiple records of the 5 GS.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (WO 2021/174189) in view of Kuge (US Pub. 2023/0164726).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11, Ryu discloses a method, comprising:
storing record of 5GS non-access stratum (NAS) security contexts for one or more PLMNs by a user equipment (UE) (par.0115, par.0130 “5G…..multiple different kind of AN(s)…….3GPP access 105 and non-3GPP access 165”, par.0136 “AMF 155………the selected PLMN…RM-REGISTERED……….the UE 100 context may be stored in the UE 100”),
wherein the UE is being de-registered (par.0132 “de-register”, par.0136 “deregistered 500”) from a first PLMN over a first access and a second access (par.0113-0115, fig.3 elements 105-1, 105-2”), wherein the UE has valid 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN stored for the first access and for the second access (par.0115 “RM context valid over 3GPP access 105 and non 3GPP access 165”, par.0130 “5G…..multiple different kind of AN(s)…….3GPP access 105 and non-3GPP access 165”, par.0136 “the selected PLMN…RM-REGISTERED……….the UE 100 context may be stored in the UE 100”, ); and performing a registration to the first PLMN over the first access, wherein the UE marks the 5GS NAS security contexts of the first PLMN as invalid for the first access and as invalid for the second access (par.0182 “the UE 100 needs to re-register and the 5G-GUTI is invalid”, par.0196).
Ryu fails to disclose storing multiple records.
Kuge discloses storing multiple records (par.051 “each storage unit……………340……540……in each apparatus”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Ryu with the above teaching of Kuge in order to provide multiple storage unit to access multiple networks as suggested in fig. 1
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13, the modified Ryu discloses the UE manages a first record and a second record for the first access, and wherein the UE also manages a first record and a second record for the second access (Ryu par.0116 “multiple AMF 155 sets”, par.0136 “AMF 155………the selected PLMN…RM-REGISTERED……….the UE 100 context may be stored in the UE 100”, Kuge fig. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the modified Ryu discloses the 5GS NAS security context of the first PLMN for the first access is stored in the first record for the first access, and the 5GS NAS security context of the first PLMN for the second access is stored in the second record for the second access (par.0115 “separate…..security context…….3GPP 105 and non 3 GPP access 165”, par.0116 “multiple AMF 155 sets”, par.0136 “AMF 155………the selected PLMN…RM-REGISTERED……….the UE 100 context may be stored in the UE 100”, Kuge fig. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the modified Ryu discloses the 5GS NAS security context of the second PLMN for the second access is stored in the first record for the second access, and the 5GS NAS security context of the second PLMN for the first access is stored in the second record for the first access (par.0115 “separate…..security context…….3GPP 105 and non 3 GPP access 165”, par.0116 “multiple AMF 155 sets”, par.0136 “AMF 155………the selected PLMN…RM-REGISTERED……….the UE 100 context may be stored in the UE 100”, Kuge fig. 1, 3, 4).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ryu discloses the lE performs a registration to the second PLMN over the second access, wherein the UE marks the 5GS NAS security contexts of the second PLMN as invalid for the second access and as invalid for the first access (Ryu “par.0136 “The UE 100 context in the AMF may not hold valid locations or routing information for the UE 100 so the UE 100 may not be reachable by the AMF 155”).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ryu discloses the UE marks 5GS security contexts in a first record of the first access for the first PLMN as invalid and the 5GS security contexts in a second record of the first access for the second PLMN as invalid, and marks the 5GS security contexts in the first record of the second access for the second PLMN as invalid and the 5GS security contexts in the second record of the second access for the first PLMN as invalid (Ryu “par.0136 “The UE 100 context in the AMF may not hold valid locations or routing information for the UE 100 so the UE 100 may not be reachable by the AMF 155”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 and 12 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Examiner Tu Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7883. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM Eastern Time.
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 Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-791515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Delany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TU X NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights