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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/25/2024 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations that use the words “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed invention, and equivalents thereof, as described therein:
In claims 29-30: “means for receiving“, “means for scanning“, and “means for registering” are being interpreted to cover UE (user equipment) 600, communication manager 140, registration component 910, and equivalents thereof (see Figs. 4-9; Paragraph(s) [0094], [0103], [0106]);
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-2, 13, 14, 25-26, 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chun teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a memory ([0014]); and one or more processors, coupled to the memory ([0014]), configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a configuration indicating a set of non-public networks (NPNs), wherein the configuration includes at least one of: a time condition for accessing the set of NPNs, or a location condition for accessing the set of NPNs ([0559], UE begins a search for an NPN when entering a specific area or location); scan for the set of NPNs based at least in part on the configuration ([Fig. 13, step 1320, UE filters for a valid NPN based on the configuration]); and register with an available NPN, of the set of NPNs, based at least in part on the time condition or the location condition being met for the available NPN ([0583] The UE attempts to subscribe, according to the priority of the NPN valid in the current region, using the result of S1320 (S1330)).
Regarding claim 2, Chun teaches the set of NPNs is a set of standalone NPNs (SNPNs), and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to scan for the set of SNPNs ([0567], a set NPNs are interchangeable with a set of SNPNs) based at least in part on the configuration, are configured to cause the apparatus to: scan for the set of SNPNs while in a public land mobile network (PLMN) access mode based at least in part on the time condition or the location condition being satisfied ([0007] and [0582], network selection list may be a PLMN selector list, therefore implying the possibility of the usage of a PLMN access mode while scanning for available NPNs based on a given configuration).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 25, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 29, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 2.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 15, 17, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Kim (WO 2022071673 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Chun teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: detect the available NPN based at least in part on the scanning (Fig. 13, step 1320 teaches the UE filtering out and selecting detected NPNs based on the configuration).
Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching a switch to an SNPN localized services mode, wherein registering with the available NPN is based at least in part on the SNPN localized services mode.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention. Kim teaches a switch to an SNPN localized services mode, wherein registering with the available NPN is based at least in part on the SNPN localized services mode (translated from foreign document Kim: Page 26, Paragraphs 10 and 15, selecting the network preference “SNPN only” can be considered equivalent to a switch to a SNPN localized services mode, wherein the apparatus or UE registers with only SNPNs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed application before the filing date to combine the NPN scanning from Chun with the switch to SNPN localized services, as taught by Kim, in order for a user to be able to connect to and use a wide variety of networks types, such as SNPNs.
Regarding claim 5, Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that in the SNPN localized services mode, the apparatus is configured to register with only SNPNs of the set of SNPNs.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Kim teaches that in the SNPN localized services mode, the apparatus is configured to register with only SNPNs of the set of SNPNs (translated from foreign document Kim: Page 26, Paragraphs 10 and 15, network preference “SNPN only” can be considered equivalent to a SNPN localized services mode, where the apparatus or UE registers with only SNPNs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine Chun’s apparatus with the “SNPN only” registration feature, as described by Kim, in order to more efficiently connect to private networks by filtering for SNPNs only from a list of available networks.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 27, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Kim (WO 2022071673 A1), and further in view of Yu (CN 114079910 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chun and Kim differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: switch from the SNPN localized services mode to a PLMN access mode or an SNPN access mode based at least in part on the time condition or the location condition no longer being satisfied.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Yu teaches that the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: switch from the SNPN localized services mode to a PLMN access mode or an SNPN access mode based at least in part on the time condition or the location condition no longer being satisfied (Translated from foreign document Yu: Page 2 Paragraph 3, UE quickly switches from a receiving data state to a RRC connection state (by first going from RRC-Inactive and then going to RRC-Connected). The state in which the UE receives downlink data can be considered equivalent to a network localized services mode, while the RRC connection state may be considered equivalent to a network access mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed application before the filing date to combine the combination of Chun and Kim with the mode switching functionality of Yu, in order to ensure better service continuity by more quickly switching to an RRC connection state (from Inactive to Connected) when data is being sent and/or received.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 4.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Li (CN 115835340 A).
Regarding claim 9, Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the configuration includes an allowed closed access group (CAG) list, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to register with the available NPN, are configured to cause the apparatus to: register with a CAG cell, associated with the available NPN, based at least in part on the CAG cell being identified by the allowed CAG list and based at least in part on the time condition or the location condition being satisfied for the CAG cell.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Li teaches that the configuration includes an allowed closed access group (CAG) list, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to register with the available NPN, are configured to cause the apparatus to: register with a CAG cell, associated with the available NPN, based at least in part on the CAG cell being identified by the allowed CAG list and based at least in part on the time condition or the location condition being satisfied for the CAG cell (Translated from foreign document Li: Page 8 Paragraph 2, and Page 9 Paragraph 18 to Page 10 Paragraph 1, network selection may depend on time, location / position, and a unique CAG ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Chun with the configuration / CAG ID feature as taught by Li, in order to more efficiently find suitable networks / cells by looking for a specific CAG ID.
Regarding claim 10, Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching the set of NPNs includes a set of public network integrated NPNs (PNI-NPNs).
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Li teaches that the set of NPNs includes a set of public network integrated NPNs (PNI-NPNs) (Translated from foreign document Li: Page 2 Paragraph 1 and Page 16 Paragraph 14, a target network to be selected for registration may be an PNI-NPN, which is considered a type of NPN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Chun with the set of NPNs as taught by Li, in order to more efficiently find suitable networks by including the ability to work with PNI-NPNs, in addition to NPNs.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 10.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Won (VN 10058130 B), and further in view of Li (CN 115835340 A).
Regarding claim 6, Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the set of NPNs is a set of standalone NPNs (SNPNs), and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to scan for the set of SNPNs based at least in part on the configuration, are configured to cause the apparatus to: scan for SNPNs broadcasting an SNPN identifier that matches an SNPN, of the set of SNPNs, for which the time condition or the location condition is satisfied.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Won teaches that the set of NPNs is a set of standalone NPNs (SNPNs) (Translated from foreign document Won: Page 3 Paragraph 4, a network may be a NPN or a SNPN, meaning that they are interchangeable), and wherein the one or more processors (Translated from foreign document Won: Page 20 Paragraph 4, processor 701), to cause the apparatus to scan for the set of SNPNs based at least in part on the configuration (Translated from foreign document Won: Page 44 Paragraph 1 (Line 7), MS selects an SNPN with an identifier that matches one found in broadcast information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the apparatus as taught by Chun, with the SNPN identifier broadcasting feature as taught by Kim, to more easily find suitable SNPNs via broadcasting of SNPN identifiers.
The combination of Chun and Kim differ from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing to scan for SNPNs broadcasting an SNPN identifier that matches an SNPN, of the set of SNPNs, for which the time condition or the location condition is satisfied.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Li discloses to scan for SNPNs broadcasting an SNPN identifier that matches an SNPN, of the set of SNPNs, for which the time condition or the location condition is satisfied (Translated from foreign document Li: Page 1, Paragraph 1, conditions for selecting a network may be based on time or location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Chun and Kim with the location and time condition for network selection as taught by Li, in order to find the most suitable network by filtering out for networks that fulfill both a location and time condition in addition to an SNPN identifier.
Claim(s) 8, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Ferdi (WO 2020205609 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the configuration indicates a set of sub-network identifiers associated with the set of NPNs, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to register with the available NPN, are configured to cause the apparatus to: register with the available NPN based at least in part on the available NPN broadcasting a sub-network identifier, of the set of sub-network identifiers, that corresponds to the available NPN based at least in part on the configuration.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Ferdi teaches that the configuration indicates a set of sub-network identifiers associated with the set of NPNs, and wherein the one or more processors (Page 6, Paragraph 2 or [32], processor 118), to cause the apparatus to register with the available NPN, are configured to cause the apparatus to: register with the available NPN based at least in part on the available NPN broadcasting a sub-network identifier, of the set of sub-network identifiers, that corresponds to the available NPN based at least in part on the configuration (Page 12. Paragraph 5 or [77], WTRU device decides to register with an SNPN based on a subscriber (network) identifier that the available SNPN is broadcasting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus from Chun with the subnetwork identifiers as taught by Ferdi, in order to more efficiently find suitable networks by looking for specific sub-network identifier.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 8.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Won (VN 10058130 B), in view of Li (CN 115835340 A), and further in view of Zhang (CN 114025400 A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Chun, Won and Li differ from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to scan for the set of SNPNs based at least in part on the configuration, are configured to cause the apparatus to: initiate scanning for the set of SNPNs based at least in part on a change in whether the time condition is satisfied or a change in whether the location condition is satisfied.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Zhang teaches that the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to scan for the set of SNPNs based at least in part on the configuration, are configured to cause the apparatus to: initiate scanning for the set of SNPNs based at least in part on a change in whether the time condition is satisfied or a change in whether the location condition is satisfied (Translated from foreign document Zhang: [Page 8, Paragraph 4] once the terminal leaves the coverage range of the SNPN and PLMN, network switching is activated and a search for another network is made).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the apparatus as taught by the combination of Chun, Won and Li, with the change-detection scanning as taught by Zhang, in order to maintain an optimal and stable connection to a network by detecting that the conditions are no longer being met by a SNPN and connecting to a new one accordingly.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 7.
Claim(s) 11 12, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chun (US 20200245235 A1), in view of Kakinata (US 20220361092 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Chun differs from the claimed invention in not specifically teaching that the configuration is associated with a subscriber of the apparatus.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Kakinata teaches that the configuration is associated with a subscriber of the apparatus ([0004], subscription credentials to access NPNs are stored and preconfigured within a UE associated with a subscriber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the filing date to combine the apparatus of Chun with the configuration of Kakinata, in order to boost security by only allowing entities that have an SNPN subscription to access the services provided by the SNPN.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons set forth in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12 and 24, Chun further teaches that the subscriber is associated with a subscribed NPN or a home public land mobile network, and wherein the configuration is from the subscribed NPN or the home public land mobile network ([0557] the information is stored on the NPN that is subscribed to the UE (apparatus), and [0256-0260], UE is capable of receiving information from a PLMN in order to help choose a cell).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN HUYTAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN HUY DINH NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights