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 .
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu (US 2020/0351755 A1) in view of Kuppelur (US 2023/0388898 A1), and further in view of Viswanath (US 2023/0138108 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang-Fu teaches a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE) ([0002], “wireless communications, and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus for enhancement for closed access groups (CAGs)”; [0006], “receiving, at a user equipment (UE), a configuration update command message including a closed access group (CAG) information list information element (IE) containing a CAG information list”), comprising:
maintaining a closed access group (CAG) information list including an entry ([0031], “the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2”),
wherein the UE supports enhanced CAG information ([0002], “wireless communications, and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus for enhancement for closed access groups (CAGs)”; [0006], “receiving (~supports), at a user equipment (UE), a configuration update command message including a closed access group (CAG) information list information element (IE) containing a CAG information list”),
the entry includes an allowed CAG list associated with a current public land mobile network (PLMN) ([0031], “FIG. 3 shows a coded entry 300, e.g., the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. The entry 300 can include a length of entry contents 302, a PLMN ID 304, a CAG only bit 306, seven spared bits, and CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n. The PLMN ID 304 includes a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC). The CAG only bit 306 indicates whether a UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (CAG only)”), and
the allowed CAG list includes one or more CAG identifiers (IDs) ([0031], “FIG. 3 shows a coded entry 300, e.g., the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. The entry 300 can include a length of entry contents 302, a PLMN ID 304, a CAG only bit 306, seven spared bits, and CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n (~CAG identifiers (IDs)). The PLMN ID 304 includes a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC). The CAG only bit 306 indicates whether a UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (CAG only)”);
accessing the current PLMN via a current CAG cell with a CAG ID ([0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”),
wherein the CAG ID is determined as being authorized based on the allowed CAG list associated with the current PLMN ([0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”); and
Huang-Fu does not explicitly teach in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists.
However, Kuppelur teaches in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists ([0030], “access class barring may occur due to high load (~first event) or congestion on the network. UE-AS may send a rejection message 112 due to this access class barring. If during the connection establishment for the MO 5GMM specific procedure (~if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists) or service request procedure the lower layers indicate that access barring is applicable for all access categories except categories 0 and 2 and the access category with which the access attempt was associated is other than access category 0 (=MT_acc) and 2, UE aborts the ongoing 5GMM specific procedure (~aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure) or service request procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuppelur with the teaching of Huang-Fu in order to prevent state conflicts, clear stale signaling, and immediately realign the UE with valid network access policies.
The combination does not explicitly teach in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: locally releasing a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling connection if the NAS signaling connection exists.
However, Viswanath teaches in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: locally releasing a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling connection if the NAS signaling connection exists ([0081], “upon receiving a request from the upper layers to perform emergency services fallback when the UE 110 is configured with 3GPP access or establish an emergency PDU session (~in response to a first event), the UE 110 may stop T3540 and locally release the N1 NAS signaling connection”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Viswanath with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur in order to locally to clean up device-side protocol states, transition a UE to an idle or deregistered state, clear radio/logical control channels, and stop active mobility or registration procedures when an exception, rejection, or state transition occurs.
Regarding claim 2, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first event includes: determining that the CAG ID becomes not authorized based on the allowed CAG list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~Not authorized for this CAG (~first event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”);
determining that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty (~none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized)”), and
determining whether the entry includes an indication that the UE is only allowed to access a fifth-generation system (5GS) via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received (~Not authorized for this CAG (~first event)) from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry does not include the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0031], “if the CAG only bit 306 is set to “0,” “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” is not set, and the UE is allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells. On the contrary, the CAG only bit 360 set to “1” indicates that the UE is not allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells. The CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n are the identifiers of CAG cells. A CAG is identified by a CAG identifier which is unique within the scope of a PLMN ID. A CAG cell broadcasts one or multiple CAG identifiers per PLMN. A UE can compare the CAG identifiers broadcast by a CAG cell with CAG identifiers contained in the CAG information list provisioned by the network, and determine whether the CAG cell is a CAG cell that it is allowed to camp on. When the CAG only bit 306 is set to “1,” the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells associated with CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n.”; [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN”).
Regarding claim 4, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry includes the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells, and that one or more CAG IDs are authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
Regarding claim 8, Huang-Fu teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus being a user equipment (UE) ([0045], “apparatus 1000 can be the UE 124”; [0002], “present disclosure relates to wireless communications”; [0045], “the apparatus 1000 can be a smart phone, a wearable device, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a tablet, and the like”), comprising:
a memory ([0045], “apparatus 1000 can include a non-volatile memory 1002”); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to ([0045], “apparatus 1000 can be used to implement functions of the UE 124 in various embodiments and examples described herein. The apparatus 1000 can include a general purpose processor and/or specifically designed circuits to implement various functions, components or processes described herein in various embodiments. The apparatus 1000 can include a non-volatile memory 1002, receiving circuitry 1004, processing circuitry 1006, transmitting circuitry 1008 and a USIM 1110”):
maintain a closed access group (CAG) information list including an entry ([0031], “the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2”),
wherein the UE supports enhanced CAG information ([0002], “wireless communications, and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus for enhancement for closed access groups (CAGs)”; [0006], “receiving (~supports), at a user equipment (UE), a configuration update command message including a closed access group (CAG) information list information element (IE) containing a CAG information list”),
the entry includes an allowed CAG list associated with a current public land mobile network (PLMN) ([0031], “FIG. 3 shows a coded entry 300, e.g., the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. The entry 300 can include a length of entry contents 302, a PLMN ID 304, a CAG only bit 306, seven spared bits, and CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n. The PLMN ID 304 includes a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC). The CAG only bit 306 indicates whether a UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (CAG only)”), and
the allowed CAG list includes one or more CAG identifiers (IDs) ([0031], “FIG. 3 shows a coded entry 300, e.g., the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. The entry 300 can include a length of entry contents 302, a PLMN ID 304, a CAG only bit 306, seven spared bits, and CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n (~CAG identifiers (IDs)). The PLMN ID 304 includes a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC). The CAG only bit 306 indicates whether a UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (CAG only)”);
access the current PLMN via a current CAG cell with a CAG ID ([0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”),
wherein the CAG ID is determined as being authorized based on the allowed CAG list associated with the current PLMN ([0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
Huang-Fu does not explicitly teach in response to a first event, perform one or more of actions including: aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists.
However, Kuppelur teaches in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists ([0030], “access class barring may occur due to high load (~first event) or congestion on the network. UE-AS may send a rejection message 112 due to this access class barring. If during the connection establishment for the MO 5GMM specific procedure (~if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists) or service request procedure the lower layers indicate that access barring is applicable for all access categories except categories 0 and 2 and the access category with which the access attempt was associated is other than access category 0 (=MT_acc) and 2, UE aborts the ongoing 5GMM specific procedure (~aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure) or service request procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuppelur with the teaching of Huang-Fu in order to prevent state conflicts, clear stale signaling, and immediately realign the UE with valid network access policies.
The combination does not explicitly teach in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: locally releasing a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling connection if the NAS signaling connection exists.
However, Viswanath teaches in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: locally releasing a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling connection if the NAS signaling connection exists ([0081], “upon receiving a request from the upper layers to perform emergency services fallback when the UE 110 is configured with 3GPP access or establish an emergency PDU session (~in response to a first event), the UE 110 may stop T3540 and locally release the N1 NAS signaling connection”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Viswanath with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur in order to locally to clean up device-side protocol states, transition a UE to an idle or deregistered state, clear radio/logical control channels, and stop active mobility or registration procedures when an exception, rejection, or state transition occurs.
Regarding claim 9, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the apparatus of claim 8,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the CAG ID becomes not authorized based on the allowed CAG list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~Not authorized for this CAG (~first event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”);
determining that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty (~none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized)”), and
determining whether the entry includes an indication that the UE is only allowed to access a fifth-generation system (5GS) via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received (~Not authorized for this CAG (~first event)) from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty”).
Regarding claim 10, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry does not include the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0031], “if the CAG only bit 306 is set to “0,” “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” is not set, and the UE is allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells. On the contrary, the CAG only bit 360 set to “1” indicates that the UE is not allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells. The CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n are the identifiers of CAG cells. A CAG is identified by a CAG identifier which is unique within the scope of a PLMN ID. A CAG cell broadcasts one or multiple CAG identifiers per PLMN. A UE can compare the CAG identifiers broadcast by a CAG cell with CAG identifiers contained in the CAG information list provisioned by the network, and determine whether the CAG cell is a CAG cell that it is allowed to camp on. When the CAG only bit 306 is set to “1,” the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells associated with CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n.”; [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN”).
Regarding claim 11, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry includes the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells, and that one or more CAG IDs are authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
Regarding claim 15, Huang-Fu teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code for wireless communication of a user equipment (UE), comprising code to (Huang-Fu [0045], “apparatus 1000 can include a general purpose processor and/or specifically designed circuits to implement various functions, components or processes described herein in various embodiments. The apparatus 1000 can include a non-volatile memory 1002 (~non-transitory computer readable medium), receiving circuitry 1004, processing circuitry 1006, transmitting circuitry 1008 and a USIM 1110. In some other embodiments of the disclosure, the apparatus 1000 can optionally include other components, such as input and output devices, signal processing circuitry, and the like. Accordingly, the apparatus 1000 can be capable of performing other additional functions, such as executing application programs, and processing alternative communication protocols”):
maintain a closed access group (CAG) information list including an entry ([0031], “the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2”),
wherein the UE supports enhanced CAG information ([0002], “wireless communications, and, more particularly, to methods and apparatus for enhancement for closed access groups (CAGs)”; [0006], “receiving (~supports), at a user equipment (UE), a configuration update command message including a closed access group (CAG) information list information element (IE) containing a CAG information list”),
the entry includes an allowed CAG list associated with a current public land mobile network (PLMN) ([0031], “FIG. 3 shows a coded entry 300, e.g., the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. The entry 300 can include a length of entry contents 302, a PLMN ID 304, a CAG only bit 306, seven spared bits, and CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n. The PLMN ID 304 includes a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC). The CAG only bit 306 indicates whether a UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (CAG only)”), and
the allowed CAG list includes one or more CAG identifiers (IDs) ([0031], “FIG. 3 shows a coded entry 300, e.g., the entry 206-1 of the CAG information list IE 200 of FIG. 2, according to some embodiments of the disclosure. The entry 300 can include a length of entry contents 302, a PLMN ID 304, a CAG only bit 306, seven spared bits, and CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n (~CAG identifiers (IDs)). The PLMN ID 304 includes a mobile country code (MCC) and a mobile network code (MNC). The CAG only bit 306 indicates whether a UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells (CAG only)”);
access the current PLMN via a current CAG cell with a CAG ID ([0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”),
wherein the CAG ID is determined as being authorized based on the allowed CAG list associated with the current PLMN ([0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
Huang-Fu does not explicitly teach in response to a first event, perform one or more of actions including: aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists.
However, Kuppelur teaches in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists ([0030], “access class barring may occur due to high load (~first event) or congestion on the network. UE-AS may send a rejection message 112 due to this access class barring. If during the connection establishment for the MO 5GMM specific procedure (~if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists) or service request procedure the lower layers indicate that access barring is applicable for all access categories except categories 0 and 2 and the access category with which the access attempt was associated is other than access category 0 (=MT_acc) and 2, UE aborts the ongoing 5GMM specific procedure (~aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure) or service request procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuppelur with the teaching of Huang-Fu in order to prevent state conflicts, clear stale signaling, and immediately realign the UE with valid network access policies.
The combination does not explicitly teach in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: locally releasing a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling connection if the NAS signaling connection exists.
However, Viswanath teaches in response to a first event, performing one or more of actions including: locally releasing a non-access stratum (NAS) signaling connection if the NAS signaling connection exists ([0081], “upon receiving a request from the upper layers to perform emergency services fallback when the UE 110 is configured with 3GPP access or establish an emergency PDU session (~in response to a first event), the UE 110 may stop T3540 and locally release the N1 NAS signaling connection”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Viswanath with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur in order to locally to clean up device-side protocol states, transition a UE to an idle or deregistered state, clear radio/logical control channels, and stop active mobility or registration procedures when an exception, rejection, or state transition occurs.
Regarding claim 16, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the CAG ID becomes not authorized based on the allowed CAG list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~Not authorized for this CAG (~first event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”);
determining that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty (~none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized)”), and
determining whether the entry includes an indication that the UE is only allowed to access a fifth-generation system (5GS) via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received (~Not authorized for this CAG (~first event)) from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty”).
Regarding claim 17, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry does not include the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0031], “if the CAG only bit 306 is set to “0,” “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” is not set, and the UE is allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells. On the contrary, the CAG only bit 360 set to “1” indicates that the UE is not allowed to access 5GS via non-CAG cells. The CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n are the identifiers of CAG cells. A CAG is identified by a CAG identifier which is unique within the scope of a PLMN ID. A CAG cell broadcasts one or multiple CAG identifiers per PLMN. A UE can compare the CAG identifiers broadcast by a CAG cell with CAG identifiers contained in the CAG information list provisioned by the network, and determine whether the CAG cell is a CAG cell that it is allowed to camp on. When the CAG only bit 306 is set to “1,” the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells associated with CAG IDs 308-1 to 308-n.”; [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN”).
Regarding claim 18, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry includes the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells, and that one or more CAG IDs are authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, further in view of Viswanath, and further in view of Comaravelou (US 2023/0051856 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry includes the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells, and that no CAG ID is authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
The combination does not explicitly teach determining that the UE does not have an emergency packet data unit (PDU) session.
However, Comaravelou teaches determining that the UE does not have an emergency packet data unit (PDU) session ([0136], “No emergency PDU sessions have been established for the UE”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Comaravelou with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to ensure that the device can safely execute mobility, PLMN reselection, or deregistration procedures without disrupting ongoing emergency communications.
Regarding claim 12, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry includes the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells, and that no CAG ID is authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
The combination does not explicitly teach determining that the UE does not have an emergency packet data unit (PDU) session.
However, Comaravelou teaches determining that the UE does not have an emergency packet data unit (PDU) session ([0136], “No emergency PDU sessions have been established for the UE”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Comaravelou with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to ensure that the device can safely execute mobility, PLMN reselection, or deregistration procedures without disrupting ongoing emergency communications.
Regarding claim 19, Huang-Fu teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16,
wherein the first event includes: determining that the entry includes the indication that the UE is only allowed to access the 5GS via CAG cells, and that no CAG ID is authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received (Not authorized for this CAG (~first event) from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
The combination does not explicitly teach determining that the UE does not have an emergency packet data unit (PDU) session.
However, Comaravelou teaches determining that the UE does not have an emergency packet data unit (PDU) session ([0136], “No emergency PDU sessions have been established for the UE”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Comaravelou with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to ensure that the device can safely execute mobility, PLMN reselection, or deregistration procedures without disrupting ongoing emergency communications.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, further in view of Viswanath, and further in view of Liu (US 2022/0394456 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the second event includes: determining that the CAG ID becomes not authorized based on the allowed CAG list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”),
determining that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty (~none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized)”),
determining that the entry includes an indication that the UE is only allowed to access a fifth-generation system (5GS) via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty”), and
that no CAG ID is authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
The combination of Huang-Fu and Viswanath does not explicitly teach further comprising: in response to a second event, aborting the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists.
Kuppelur further teaches further comprising: in response to a second event, aborting the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists ([0030], “access class barring may occur due to high load (~second event) or congestion on the network. UE-AS may send a rejection message 112 due to this access class barring. If during the connection establishment for the MO 5GMM specific procedure (~if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists) or service request procedure the lower layers indicate that access barring is applicable for all access categories except categories 0 and 2 and the access category with which the access attempt was associated is other than access category 0 (=MT_acc) and 2, UE aborts the ongoing 5GMM specific procedure (~aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure) or service request procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuppelur with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to prevent state confusion, avoid conflicting signaling, and ensure the device immediately adapts to higher-priority changes such as entering a Closed Access Group or switching network slices/PLMNs.
The combination does not explicitly teach determining that the UE has an emergency PDU session.
Liu teaches determining that a UE has an emergency PDU session ([0125], “If the UE has an established emergency PDU session”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Liu with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to ensure that the network prioritizes critical life-safety communications, grants emergency roaming access, bypasses certain restrictions, and maintain connection stability during crisis situations.
Regarding claim 13, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the apparatus of claim 8,
wherein the second event includes: determining that the CAG ID becomes not authorized based on the allowed CAG list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”),
determining that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty (~none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized)”),
determining that the entry includes an indication that the UE is only allowed to access a fifth-generation system (5GS) via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty”), and
that no CAG ID is authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
The combination of Huang-Fu and Viswanath does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to a second event, aborting the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists.
Kuppelur further teaches wherein the processor ([0098], “processor(s)”) is further configured to: in response to a second event, abort the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists ([0030], “access class barring may occur due to high load (~second event) or congestion on the network. UE-AS may send a rejection message 112 due to this access class barring. If during the connection establishment for the MO 5GMM specific procedure (~if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists) or service request procedure the lower layers indicate that access barring is applicable for all access categories except categories 0 and 2 and the access category with which the access attempt was associated is other than access category 0 (=MT_acc) and 2, UE aborts the ongoing 5GMM specific procedure (~aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure) or service request procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuppelur with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to prevent state confusion, avoid conflicting signaling, and ensure the device immediately adapts to higher-priority changes such as entering a Closed Access Group or switching network slices/PLMNs.
The combination does not explicitly teach determining that the UE has an emergency PDU session.
Liu teaches determining that a UE has an emergency PDU session ([0125], “If the UE has an established emergency PDU session”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Liu with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to ensure that the network prioritizes critical life-safety communications, grants emergency roaming access, bypasses certain restrictions, and maintain connection stability during crisis situations.
Regarding claim 20, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15,
further comprising code to: wherein the second event includes: determining that the CAG ID becomes not authorized based on the allowed CAG list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”),
determining that none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 (~authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty (~none of the CAG IDs supported by the current CAG cell is currently authorized)”),
determining that the entry includes an indication that the UE is only allowed to access a fifth-generation system (5GS) via CAG cells (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only (~second event)) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN. Alternatively, if the value cause #76 is received from a CAG cell, which means that the UE 124 is not allowed to access the CAG cell, the UE 124 shall delete the CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN. On occasion, the “allowed CAG list” may become empty”), and
that no CAG ID is authorized based on the allowed CAG list for the current PLMN in the CAG information list (Huang-Fu [0034], “receiving a value cause #76 (Not authorized for this CAG or authorized for CAG cells only) from a non-CAG cell, the UE 124 shall store an “indication that the UE is only allowed to access 5GS via CAG cells” (i.e., the CAG only bit 306) in the entry 300 of the CAG information list IE 200 for the current PLMN ... CAG ID associated with the CAG cell from the “allowed CAG list” for the current PLMN”).
The combination of Huang-Fu and Viswanath does not explicitly teach further comprising code to: in response to a second event, aborting the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists.
Kuppelur further teaches further comprising code to: in response to a second event, abort the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists ([0030], “access class barring may occur due to high load (~second event) or congestion on the network. UE-AS may send a rejection message 112 due to this access class barring. If during the connection establishment for the MO 5GMM specific procedure (~if the ongoing UE-initiated 5GMM procedure exists) or service request procedure the lower layers indicate that access barring is applicable for all access categories except categories 0 and 2 and the access category with which the access attempt was associated is other than access category 0 (=MT_acc) and 2, UE aborts the ongoing 5GMM specific procedure (~aborting an ongoing UE-initiated 5G mobility management (5GMM) procedure) or service request procedure”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kuppelur with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to prevent state confusion, avoid conflicting signaling, and ensure the device immediately adapts to higher-priority changes such as entering a Closed Access Group or switching network slices/PLMNs.
The combination does not explicitly teach determining that the UE has an emergency PDU session.
Liu teaches determining that a UE has an emergency PDU session ([0125], “If the UE has an established emergency PDU session”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Liu with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to ensure that the network prioritizes critical life-safety communications, grants emergency roaming access, bypasses certain restrictions, and maintain connection stability during crisis situations.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, further in view of Viswanath, and further in view of Kumar (US 2024/0107407 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the CAG ID is configured in the allowed CAG list with time validity information indicating a time period, and the CAG ID is determined as being authorized when a current time of the UE matches with the time period and being not authorized when the current time of the UE does not match with the time period based on the allowed CAG list.
However, Kumar teaches wherein a CAG ID is configured in an allowed CAG list with time validity information indicating a time period, and the CAG ID is determined as being authorized when a current time of the UE matches with the time period ([0154], “the UE (120) broadcast CAG IDs (i.e. act as a MBSR) for a certain period of time/time-window/time-slot. At S406, the MBSR behavior after timer expiry and the behavior of the UEs which do not have at least one of the CAG IDs in their allowed CAG list needs to be defined. At S408, the UEs (100) connected to the MBSR UE are authorized or allowed to camp/register/avail services only for a stipulated amount of time/time-window/time-slot/time-period”) and
being not authorized when the current time of the UE does not match with the time period based on the allowed CAG list ([0156], “If the broadcast information on the CAG IDs have changed and optionally, at least one of the CAG-ID broadcasted is not part of the allowed CAG list of the UE (i.e. in this embodiment this implies becomes not authorized based on the “Allowed CAG list” (e.g., time validity information no longer matches UE's current time”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kumar with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to enforce temporary, scheduled access control by ensuring that a device can only connect to specific private or specialized 5G network cells such as temporary enterprise workspaces, shift-based factory floors, or public safety relays during precise, authorized time windows.
Regarding claim 14, Huang-Fu in view of Kuppelur, and further in view of Viswanath teaches the apparatus of claim 8.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the CAG ID is configured in the allowed CAG list with time validity information indicating a time period, and
the CAG ID is determined as being authorized when a current time of the UE matches with the time period and being not authorized when the current time of the UE does not match with the time period based on the allowed CAG list.
However, Kumar teaches wherein a CAG ID is configured in an allowed CAG list with time validity information indicating a time period, and
the CAG ID is determined as being authorized when a current time of a UE matches with the time period ([0154], “the UE (120) broadcast CAG IDs (i.e. act as a MBSR) for a certain period of time/time-window/time-slot. At S406, the MBSR behavior after timer expiry and the behavior of the UEs which do not have at least one of the CAG IDs in their allowed CAG list needs to be defined. At S408, the UEs (100) connected to the MBSR UE are authorized or allowed to camp/register/avail services only for a stipulated amount of time/time-window/time-slot/time-period”) and
being not authorized when the current time of the UE does not match with the time period based on the allowed CAG list ([0156], “If the broadcast information on the CAG IDs have changed and optionally, at least one of the CAG-ID broadcasted is not part of the allowed CAG list of the UE (i.e. in this embodiment this implies becomes not authorized based on the “Allowed CAG list” (e.g., time validity information no longer matches UE's current time”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kumar with the teaching of Huang-Fu as modified by Kuppelur and Viswanath in order to enforce temporary, scheduled access control by ensuring that a device can only connect to specific private or specialized 5G network cells such as temporary enterprise workspaces, shift-based factory floors, or public safety relays during precise, authorized time windows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER YI whose telephone number is (571)270-7696. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 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, JINSONG HU, can be reached on (571) 272-3965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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).
/ALEXANDER J YI/Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights