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 preliminary amendment filed on 3/28/2024. Claims 1-19, 33 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, 8, 11-13, 17, 33 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 network information for the local network during the registration update process, during the handover, or during the state transition of the user equipment” 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, “user equipment” is applying abstract idea using a general-purpose computer (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). It invokes a generic computer (user equipment) 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 elements, “initiating, based on a tracking area code associated with a local network configured to provide localized services, a registration update process, a handover, or a state transition with respect to user equipment that is served by a mobile network” and “receiving network information at the user equipment during the registration update process, during the handover, or during the state transition of the user equipment” are insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity), and additional element “establishing a connection between the user equipment and the local network based on the network information” (post-solution activity) (MPEP 2106.05 (g)).
The additional element, “local network” and “mobile network” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (communication network) (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 network information. 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, “initiating, based on a tracking area code associated with a local network configured to provide localized services, a registration update process, a handover, or a state transition with respect to user equipment that is served by a mobile network”, “receiving network information at the user equipment …” and “establishing a connection between the user equipment and the local network based on the network information” 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 communication) using a generic computer.
Other independent claim(s) (e.g., claim 17, and 33) recite similar claim language and thus is/are rejected for the same reasons as that of claim 1.
Dependent claims 8,11-13 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 8 [direct connection, is well known conventional activity], claim 11 [PDU session, is well known conventional activity], claim 12 [displaying the information and selection the network, is well known conventional activity], claim 13 [selecting network based on broadcast information, is well known conventional activity].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, "determining network information ... receiving network information ... establishing a connection between the user equipment and the local network based on the network information."
It is unclear which network information "establishing ... based on the network information" refers to.
Independent Claims 17 and 33 have similar language and thus are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1 above.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18-19 fail to cure the deficiency and are rejected for the same reason as above.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,7,8,10,11,13,17,33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0182788).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee discloses a system and method (abstract; figures), comprising:
initiating, based on a tracking area code associated with a local network configured to provide localized services, a registration update process, a handover, or a state transition with respect to user equipment that is served by a mobile network ([Note: the optional language “or” require only one of the options by prior art]; see para 64, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {local area data network (LADN)}; para 130 {data network allowed area (it may be called a data network service area or LADN service area… the registration area may be configured by a set of tracking areas that the 5G core network allocates to the terminal… a registration update procedure}; para 131 { If the terminal gets out of the registration area, it should perform the registration update procedure}; figures; para 147 { If a local area data network to which the terminal belongs is included in the registration area where the terminal performs the registration procedure} [the LADN is equivalent to claimed, local area network for local service in tracking area]; figures 3,8);
determining network information for the local network during the registration update process, during the handover, or during the state transition of the user equipment (para 17-33; fig 8-10; para 147 {If a local area data network to which the terminal belongs is included in the registration area where the terminal performs the registration procedure while the network registration procedure is performed, the network notifies the terminal of data network information available to the terminal});
receiving network information at the user equipment during the registration update process, during the handover, or during the state transition of the user equipment (para 19 {a terminal includes receiving data network information}; para 116,147,149; figures); and
establishing a connection between the user equipment and the local network based on the network information (para 30; para 118-120; para 156 { terminal performs a session establishment procedure for establishing the local area data network connection.}; figures 8-10; para 166-168; and see throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 7:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the determining the network information comprises determining a link to a network portal for the local network (para 211; see para 217 [link is URL information, as in present application para 68]; and see throughout).
Regarding claim 8:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the establishing the connection comprises establishing, based on the network information, a direct connection between the user equipment and the local network (para 156 [session establishment directly]; and throughout ).
Regarding claim 10:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above and establishing the connection between the user equipment and the local network in addition to another connection between the user equipment and a mobile network (para 30 [LADN connection, and AMF connection]; para 156,159; and throughout).
Regarding claim 11:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above and initiating a packet data unit (PDU) session within the local network based on the network information (para 69,82,110; and throughout).
Regarding claim 13:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above selecting the local network for the connection between the user equipment and the local network based on information broadcasted by the mobile network (para 156 [local area data network through tracking area information or cell information broadcasted]; and throughout).
Regarding claim 17:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 1, and further discloses an apparatus (figs 11-13) comprising processing circuitry and at least one memory including computer program code instructions (figure 12 [controller 1220, memory 1230]; fig 13), the computer program code instructions configured to, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the apparatus to perform the method steps as above in claim 1. Thus claim 17 is rejected with similar rational as above.
Regarding claim 33:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above for claim 1, and further discloses a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (figures 11-13; para 55 [an execution of an application program is requested]; para 118,200,210; and throughout) having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein to perform the method steps as above in claim 1. Thus claim 33 is rejected with similar rational as above in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2,3,14,18,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0182788) in view of Kweon (US 2023/0048220).
Regarding claims 2,18:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching that wherein the determining the network information comprises determining a group identifier for network selection (GIN) for the local network.
However, Kweon in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein the determining the network information comprises determining a group identifier for network selection (GIN) for the local network (para 12 {… includes information regarding preferred SNPN and information regarding a list of group identifiers for network selection (GINs)}; para 13-16,55,78; figs; and see throughout the 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 Kweon in Lee in order to effectively provide update information of the network to the UE for [1,12] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claims 3, 19:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that determining a Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) identifier for the local network.
However, Kweon in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein determining a Standalone Non-Public Network (SNPN) identifier for the local network (para 12-14; para 55,76,77; figs; and see throughout the 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 Kweon in Lee in order to effectively provide update information of the network to the UE for [1,12] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 14:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching that selecting the local network for the connection between the user equipment and the local network based on a group identifier for network selection (GIN) that is mapped to the local network.
However, Kweon in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein selecting the local network for the connection between the user equipment and the local network based on a group identifier for network selection (GIN) that is mapped to the local network (para 12 {… includes information regarding preferred SNPN and information regarding a list of group identifiers for network selection (GINs)}; para 13-16,55,78; figs; and see throughout the 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 Kweon in Lee in order to effectively provide update information of the network to the UE for [1,12] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0182788) in view of Shan et al. (US 2019/0174449).
Regarding claim 4:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that wherein determining a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier for the local network (para 91 [PLMN id]).
However, Shan in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein determining a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier for the local network (para 91 [PLMN id]; and see throughout the 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 Shan in Lee in order to provide configured local area network information for communication [14] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 5:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that wherein determining a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) for the local network.
However, Shan in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein determining a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) for the local network (para 72; figs; para 82,85; and see throughout the 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 Shan in Lee in order to provide configured local area network information for communication [14] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 6:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that determining a Non-3GPP Interworking Function (N3IWF) for the local network.
However, Shan in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein determining a Non-3GPP Interworking Function (N3IWF) for the local network (para 49,52 [N3IWF]; figs; para 62,133; and see throughout the 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 Shan in Lee in order to provide configured local area network information for communication [14] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0182788) in view of Cho et al. (US 2020/0163042).
Regarding claim 12:
Lee discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching that displaying the network information via a display of the user equipment; and based on the displaying of the network information via the display of the user equipment, selecting the local network for the connection between the user equipment and the local network.
However, Cho in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication wherein displaying the network information via a display of the user equipment; and based on the displaying of the network information via the display of the user equipment, selecting the local network for the connection between the user equipment and the local network (para 146 [UE 10 may select and use the recommended service displayed on the first UE]; para 152,153; and see throughout the 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 Cho in Lee in order to provide configured local area network information for communication [14] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights