CTNF 18/725,077 CTNF 81681 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title . It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses phrases that can be implied: (1) The disclosure relates to … (1 st line) (2) Embodiments here disclose … (2 nd line). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 16 - 24, 26 - 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Starsinic et al. (US 20240314595 A1) . Regarding claim 16, Starsinic discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 1, UE performs steps listed under it; Abstract; Fig. 3A shows wireless system) , the method comprising: identifying a first list of public land mobile networks (PLMNs) for disaster condition associated with a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) (Fig. 1`, step 1b; [0066] discloses PLMN selection, while not considering PLMNs that are in a disaster condition, hence “usable” and “unusable” PLMNS are known) and an indication on applicability of a second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition from a visited public land mobile network (VPLMN) (Fig. 1, step 1a; [0065] discloses “In step 1a of FIG. 1, the Allowable PLMN indicates to the UE that it is in a disaster situation “; wherein the indication on applicability is the indication that the UE is in a disaster situation and hence the UE should start considering a 2 nd list of PLMNs) ; receiving, from a first base station associated with the VPLMN, the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition ([0079] discloses “ In addition, the network may send a list of possible PLMNs that the UE can switch to during the disaster condition. Each PLMN in the list may be associated with a precedence number to imply the preference .”; [0081]; wherein 1 st base station is one in the network); and selecting a PLMN based on the disaster condition (Fig. 1, step 3b; [0069] discloses “ In this step, the UE selects a PLMN form its Forbidden PLMN list or a PLMN that is not the UE's HPLMN, an EHPLMN, or a VPLMN that is known to the UE to obtain services during the disaster ” ). Regarding claim 17, Starsinic discloses in case that the indication is set to true, the PLMN is selected from the second list (Fig. 1, step 1a; [0065]; wherein “true” is inherently the same as “Disaster Situation”; 2 nd list as in claim 1). Regarding claim 18, Starsinic discloses in case that the indication is set to false, the PLMN is selected from the first list (Fig. 1, step 5a discloses disaster is over, which is inherently equivalent to false; step 5c discloses handover to allowable PLMN, which is the 1 st list; [0071] – [0073]). Regarding claim 19, Starsinic discloses wherein at least one of the first list of PLMNs for disaster condition associated with the HPLMN or the indication on applicability of the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition from the VPLMN is preconfigured in a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) ([0130] discloses “ Alternatively, an explicit notification may include receiving SIM configuration information that indicates PLMN(s) that can serve the UE when a disaster situation applies. The SIM configuration information may also include location information such that the UE knows whether the PLMN(s) can, or cannot, serve the UE during disasters in certain locations ”; wherein the 1 st list and 2 nd list correspond to “cannot” and “can” respectively). Regarding claim 20, Starsinic discloses wherein at least one of the first list of PLMNs for disaster condition associated with the HPLMN or the indication on applicability of the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition from the VPLMN is received from a second base station associated with the HPLMN ([0079] discloses “ In addition, the network may send a list of possible PLMNs that the UE can switch to during the disaster condition. Each PLMN in the list may be associated with a precedence number to imply the preference .”; [0081]; wherein 2 nd base station is one in the network). Regarding claim 21, Starsinic discloses the first list is associated with a PLMN identifier (ID) ([0099] discloses “ The message may include information about the disaster condition such as: an indication of the disaster condition and location; PLMN IDs that maybe used during the disaster situation and in the location of the disaster; PLMN IDs that may not be used during the disaster situation and in the location of the disaster” ), and wherein PLMNs are listed in the first list based on a priority ([0099] discloses “… a set of cell priorities that include cells of the PLMNs that cannot serve the UE during the disaster; a set of cell priorities that include cells of the PLMNs that can serve the UE during the disaster; …”). Regarding claim 22, Starsinic discloses the second list is associated with a PLMN identifier (ID) ([0099] discloses “ The message may include information about the disaster condition such as: an indication of the disaster condition and location; PLMN IDs that maybe used during the disaster situation and in the location of the disaster; PLMN IDs that may not be used during the disaster situation and in the location of the disaster” ), and wherein PLMNs are listed in the second list based on a priority ([0099] discloses “… a set of cell priorities that include cells of the PLMNs that cannot serve the UE during the disaster; a set of cell priorities that include cells of the PLMNs that can serve the UE during the disaster; …”). Regarding claim 23, Starsinic discloses the indication on applicability of the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition is configured based on at least one of a UE parameter update procedure or a downlink NAS transport procedure ([0079] discloses “ In cases where the UE is already connected to the network and the network can at least send control plane messages to the UE, the network can send a control plane message to the UE with the Disaster Information. The control plane message may be an RRC message from a RAN node or an NAS message from an AMF. In addition, the network may send a list of possible PLMNs that the UE can switch to during the disaster condition ”; wherein NAS is disclosed as above and update procedure is the updated list of PLMNs that are sent; [0034] and [0081] discloses similar updates of lists). Regarding claim 24, Starsinic discloses wherein, in case that new indication on applicability of the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition is received, the indication on applicability of the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition is changed (Fig. 1, step 5a, [0071] discloses “disaster situation is over”; step 5c, [0073] discloses “handover to allowable PLMN” i.e. 2 nd list of PLNS no longer used). Claim 26 is similarly analyzed as claim 16. Claim 26 additionally recites transceiver, controller (Fig. 3F, elements 120, 118; [0284] – [0285]). Claim 27 is similarly analyzed as claim 17. Claim 28 is similarly analyzed as claim 18. Claim 29 is similarly analyzed as claim 19. Claim 30 is similarly analyzed as claim 20. Claim 31 is similarly analyzed as claim 21. Claim 32 is similarly analyzed as claim 22. Claim 33 is similarly analyzed as claim 23. Claim 34 is similarly analyzed as claim 24 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 25, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic et al. (US 20240314595 A1) . Regarding claim 25, Starsinic does not explicitly disclose in case that the second list of PLMNs for the disaster condition is not available, the PLMN is selected from the first list. However, this is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) since if the 2 nd list is not available, the only list left is the 1 st list. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art can try to connect to a PLMN on the 1 st list. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to try to connect to a PLMN on the 1 st list because that is the only list available and possibly some PLMN on the 1 st list might become available if the disaster conditions improve. Claim 35 is similarly analyzed as claim 24. Other Prior Art Cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to: Chun (US 20220070815 A1) discloses method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system. Chun (US 20240205868 A1) discloses method for allowing registration to network in wireless communication system. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM. 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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. /ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 2 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 4 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 5 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 6 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 7 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 8 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 9 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/725,077 Page 10 Art Unit: 2632
