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 .
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 10/31/2024, 7/25/2025 and 07/23/2026 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1 (hereinafter Park), in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1 (hereinafter Bakker).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method of operating a user equipment, UE, the method comprising: identifying that a timer associated with requesting disaster roaming, DR is running; (Park; para. 243 - - teaches the UE operates a back-off timer for the second PLMN according to the timer information, and cannot make an additional request for Mobile Originating (MO) signaling to the second PLMN while the back-off timer is running, in a disaster roaming context).
Park fails to clearly specify attempting to make an emergency call; and registering for emergency services.
However, Bakker teaches attempting to make an emergency call; (Bakker; col. 2, lines 20-31 - - teaches an emergency call may be established by a UE that operates in a single registration mode, i.e., the UE only registers with a single network at any given time).
and registering for emergency services. (Bakker; col. 19, lines 19-20 - - teaches the UE needs to perform the registration procedure for initial registration for emergency services).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Bakker into the invention of Park to include the feature of attempting to make an emergency call and registering for emergency services in order to avoid leaving the UE unable to reach emergency services for the duration that it Is waiting to register for disaster roaming, improving the reliability and availability of emergency call access for a UE camped on a network offering disaster roaming (see Park.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Park and Bakker further teach maintaining the timer running, even after registering for emergency services. (Bakker; col. 19, lines 34-36 - - teaches there is a case where the UE needs to initiate a registration procedure for initial registration while timer T3346 is running, though abnormal. The emergency-services registration is characterized as an event that occurs “while” the timer is running.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Bakker into the invention of Park to include the feature of maintaining the disaster roaming wait timer running rather than stopping or resetting it when the UE performs a registration procedure for emergency services, improving the network’s ability to control simultaneous disaster-roaming registration attempts across UEs, since a timer that is interrupted or reset by every EUs registration would fail to spread out access attempts as intended (see Bakker; col. 19, lines 34-36).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches a user equipment, UE, comprising a transceiver and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: (Park; para. 260 - - teaches the UE comprises at least one transceiver, at least one processor).
identify that a timer associated with requesting disaster roaming, DR, is running, (Park; para. 243 - - teaches the UE operates a back-off timer for the second PLMN according to the timer information, and cannot make an additional request for Mobile Originating (MO) signaling to the second PLMN while the back-off timer is running, in a disaster roaming context).
Park fails to clearly specify to attempt to make an emergency call; and register for emergency services.
However, Bakker teaches to attempt to make an emergency call (Bakker; col. 2, lines 20-31 - - teaches an emergency call may be established by a UE that operates in a single registration mode, i.e., the UE only registers with a single network at any given time).
and register for emergency services. (Bakker; col. 19, lines 19-20 - - teaches the UE needs to perform the registration procedure for initial registration for emergency services).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Bakker into the invention of Park to include the feature of attempting to make an emergency call and registering for emergency services in order to avoid leaving the UE unable to reach emergency services for the duration that it Is waiting to register for disaster roaming, improving the reliability and availability of emergency call access for a UE camped on a network offering disaster roaming.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 9. The combination of Park and Bakker further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: maintain the timer running, even after registering for emergency services. (Bakker; col. 19, lines 34-36 - - teaches there is a case where the UE needs to initiate a registration procedure for initial registration while timer T3346 is running, though abnormal. The emergency-services registration is characterized as an event that occurs “while” the timer is running.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Bakker into the invention of Park to include the feature of maintaining the disaster roaming wait timer running rather than stopping or resetting it when the UE performs a registration procedure for emergency services, improving the network’s ability to control simultaneous disaster-roaming registration attempts across UEs, since a timer that is interrupted or reset by every EUs registration would fail to spread out access attempts as intended (see Bakker; col. 19, lines 34-36).
Claims 2 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1 as applied to claims 1 & 9, further in view of Gan, US 20210136864 A1 (hereinafter Gan).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein registering for emergency services comprises registering to use or establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services.
However, Gan teaches wherein registering for emergency services comprises registering to use or establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services. (Gan; para. 85 - - teaches when Emergency service is required and an Emergency PDU Session is not already established, a UE shall initiate the UE Requested PDU Session Establishment procedure with a Request Type indicating “Emergency Request”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Gan into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of wherein registering for emergency services comprises registering to use or establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, in order to obtain a session layer resource specifically dedicated to and prioritized for emergency traffic, rather than relying on the general registration procedure alone to convey the UEs emergency service need to the network, improving the UEs ability to actually access emergency service data connectivity once registered for emergency services, since a completed registration for emergency services would leave the UE registered but unable to transmit or receive emergency related data (see Gan, para. 85).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the UE of claim 9. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to register to use or establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services.
However, Gan teaches wherein the processor is further configured to register to use or establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services (Gan; para. 85 - - teaches when Emergency service is required and an Emergency PDU Session is not already established, a UE shall initiate the UE Requested PDU Session Establishment procedure with a Request Type indicating “Emergency Request”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Gan into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of wherein registering for emergency services comprises registering to use or establishing a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, in order to obtain a session layer resource specifically dedicated to and prioritized for emergency traffic, rather than relying on the general registration procedure alone to convey the UEs emergency service need to the network, improving the UEs ability to actually access emergency service data connectivity once registered for emergency services, since a completed registration for emergency services would leave the UE registered but unable to transmit or receive emergency related data (see Gan, para. 85).
Claims 4 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1 as applied to claims 1 & 9, in view of Lin, US 20220046742 A1 (hereinafter Lin), further in view of Chiba, WO 2022154064 A1 (hereinafter Chiba).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach if the timer expires while the UE has an emergency call or a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, performing a registration procedure for DR, after release of the emergency call or the PDU session.
However, Lin teaches if the timer expires while the UE has an emergency call or a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, performing a registration procedure, after release of the emergency call or the PDU session. (Lin; para. 27 & 29 - - teaches an MA PDU session is active when user plane resources of the MA PDU session are established over at least one access type. Further, Lin teaches on the expiry of timer T3582, the UE performs a local release of the PDU session and performs a registration procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lin into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of if the timer expires while the UE has an emergency call or a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, performing a registration procedure for DR, after release of the emergency call or the PDU session, in order to ensure the UE completes the registration it had deferred once the time condition that justified the delay no applies, improving the reliability of the UE;s disaster roaming registration status (see Lin, para. 27 & 29).
The combination of Park, Bakker, and Lin fail to teach performing a registration procedure for the purposes of DR.
However, Chiba teaches performing a registration procedure for the purposes of DR. (Chiba; para. 9 - - teaches a User Equipment (UE) comprising a transmitting and receiving unit, wherein when the transmitting and receiving unit initiates a registration procedure for disaster roaming)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chiba into the invention of Park, Bakker, and Lin to include the feature of performing a registration procedure for the purposes of DR, in order to ensure the UE’s post expiry registration actually accomplishes the disaster roaming service the UE originally sought when the timer was started, rather than an unrelated or generic registration type that would not restore the UEs disaster roaming status, improving the UEs continuity of disaster roaming service (see Chiba, para.9).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the UE of claim 9. the combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to: if the timer expires while the UE has an emergency call or a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, perform a registration procedure for DR, after the release of the emergency call or the PDU session.
However, Lin teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: if the timer expires while the UE has an emergency call or a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, perform a registration procedure for DR, after the release of the emergency call or the PDU session. (Lin; para. 27 & 29 - - teaches an MA PDU session is active when user plane resources of the MA PDU session are established over at least one access type. Further, Lin teaches on the expiry of timer T3582, the UE performs a local release of the PDU session and performs a registration procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lin into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of if the timer expires while the UE has an emergency call or a protocol data unit, PDU, session for emergency services, performing a registration procedure for DR, after release of the emergency call or the PDU session, in order to ensure the UE completes the registration it had deferred once the time condition that justified the delay no applies, improving the reliability of the UE;s disaster roaming registration status (see Lin, para. 27 & 29).
The combination of Park, Bakker, and Lin fail to teach performing a registration procedure for the purposes of DR.
However, Chiba teaches performing a registration procedure for the purposes of DR. (Chiba; para. 9 - - teaches a User Equipment (UE) comprising a transmitting and receiving unit, wherein when the transmitting and receiving unit initiates a registration procedure for disaster roaming)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chiba into the invention of Park, Bakker, and Lin to include the feature of performing a registration procedure for the purposes of DR, in order to ensure the UE’s post expiry registration actually accomplishes the disaster roaming service the UE originally sought when the timer was started, rather than an unrelated or generic registration type that would not restore the UEs disaster roaming status, improving the UEs continuity of disaster roaming service (see Chiba, para.9).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1, in view of Lin, US 20220046742 A1, in view of Chiba, WO 2022154064 A1, as applied to claim 4, further in view of Chun, US 20220070815 A1 (hereinafter Chun).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba teach the method of claim 4. The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba further teaches wherein, after the release of the emergency call or the PDU session, (Lin; para. 29 - - teaches on the expiry of timer T3582, the UE performs a local release of the PDU session and performs a registration procedure)
The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba fails to clearly specify the UE is still camped on the selected public land mobile network, PLMN, for disaster roaming.
However, Chun teaches the UE is still camped on the selected public land mobile network, PLMN, for disaster roaming. (Chun; para. 398 - - teaches in a situation in which national roaming is possible (i.e., PLMN of the same country as HPLMN to which the UE subscribes), the UE may attempt the access/camping/registration to the corresponding PLMN only if the PLMN of the same country allows national roaming or disaster roaming).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chun into the invention of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba to include the feature of the UE still being camped on the selected public land mobile network, PLMN, for disaster roaming, in order to avoid an unnecessary and disruptive cell/PLMN reselection immediately following release, when the UE has no indication that the disaster condition or its need for disaster roaming service has actually ended, improving the continuity and stability of the UEs disaster roaming service (see Chun; para. 398).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1, in view of Lin, US 20220046742 A1, in view of Chiba, WO 2022154064 A1, as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Aghili, US PGPUB 2024/0080791 A1 (hereinafter Aghili).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Park, Bakker, Lin and Chiba teach the method of claim 4. The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin and Chiba fails to teach if the UE does not (release) the emergency call or the PDU session upon expiration of the timer, performing a registration procedure for disaster roaming services.
However, Aghili teaches if the UE does not (release) the emergency call or the PDU session upon expiration of the timer, performing a registration procedure for disaster roaming services (Aghili; para. 118, 119 - - teaches at operation 2-4b, the first AMF 182D and the WTRU 102 may communicate information to register the WTRU 102 with the first PLMN 205D. The information may indicate disaster recovery parameters including, for example, any of: (1) one or more authorized PLMNs for disaster inbound roaming, (2) a disaster roaming registration time value (e.g., a registration timer value), (3) a DRF Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and/or (4) the incident identifier, among others. [0119] At operation 2-5a, the WTRU 102 may select the second PLMN 205A (e.g., as the target PLMN) based on the incident identifier associated with the disaster event. At operation 2-6, the WTRU 102 and the second AMF 182A may communicate. For example, the WTRU 102 may send registration information, to the second AMF 182A, to register the WTRU 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Aghili into the invention of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba to include the feature of if the UE does not (release) the emergency call or the PDU session upon expiration of the timer, performing a registration procedure for disaster roaming services, in order to minimize service interruptions during network failures and/or disasters (see Aghili; para. 2, 3).
Claims 7 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1 as applied to claims 1 & 9, further in view of Starsinic, US 20240007878 A1 (hereinafter Starsinic).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein the timer is started with a random number and is arranged to prevent congestion on the network.
However, Starsinic teaches wherein the timer is started with a random number and is arranged to prevent congestion on the network. (Starsinic; para. 216 & 219 - - teaches to avoid situations where many devices simultaneously attempt to return to a network when a disaster is over, the network may continue to broadcast a disaster indication even after the disaster situation is over to stop devices from immediately attempting to connect to the network. […] the notification may further include a random or UE specific timer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Starsinic into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of wherein the timer is started with a random number and is arranged to prevent congestion on the network, in order to stagger the points in time at which different UEs attempt to access or return to the network, rather than having all affected UEs act simultaneously on the same triggering condition, improving the network signaling load management during disaster related events, by reducing the likelihood of registration signaling storms and the attendant risk of dropped or delayed registration attempts that would otherwise result from a large number of UEs converging at once on the same PLMN (see Starsinic; para. 216 & 219).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 9. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein the timer is started with a random number and is arranged to prevent congestion on the network.
However, Starsinic teaches wherein the timer is started with a random number and is arranged to prevent congestion on the network. (Starsinic; para. 216 & 219 - - teaches to avoid situations where many devices simultaneously attempt to return to a network when a disaster is over, the network may continue to broadcast a disaster indication even after the disaster situation is over to stop devices from immediately attempting to connect to the network. […] the notification may further include a random or UE specific timer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Starsinic into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of wherein the timer is started with a random number and is arranged to prevent congestion on the network, in order to stagger the points in time at which different UEs attempt to access or return to the network, rather than having all affected UEs act simultaneously on the same triggering condition, improving the network signaling load management during disaster related events, by reducing the likelihood of registration signaling storms and the attendant risk of dropped or delayed registration attempts that would otherwise result from a large number of UEs converging at once on the same PLMN (see Starsinic; para. 216 & 219).
Claims 8 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1 as applied to claims 1 & 9, further in view of Niemi, US 20220217805 A1 (hereinafter Niemi).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the method of claim 1. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein, when the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range upon selecting a PLMN for disaster roaming, the timer is started with a random number with the disaster roaming wait range.
However, Niemi teaches wherein, when the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range upon selecting a PLMN for disaster roaming, the timer is started with a random number with the disaster roaming wait range (Niemi; para. 29 & claim 14 - - teaches after performing a PLMN selection, a UE (e.g., UE 110) may start a random timer (e.g., with a value range of 1-10 seconds (interpreted as the wait range)) in response to receiving the broadcast information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Niemi into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of when the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range upon selecting a PLMN for disaster roaming, the timer is started with a random number with the disaster roaming wait range, in order to bound the randomization to a range appropriate to the specific PLMN and disaster roaming scenario the UE has selected into, rather than staggering access attempts using a generic or unbounded random value that may not be calibrated to the network’s actual congestion characteristics, improving the predictability and effectiveness of the network’s access-staggering scheme (see Niemi; para. 29 & claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park and Bakker teach the UE of claim 9. The combination of Park and Bakker fail to teach wherein, when the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range upon selecting a PLMN for disaster roaming, the timer is started with a random number with the disaster roaming wait range.
However, Niemi teaches wherein, when the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range upon selecting a PLMN for disaster roaming, the timer is started with a random number with the disaster roaming wait range (Niemi; para. 29 & claim 14 - - teaches after performing a PLMN selection, a UE (e.g., UE 110) may start a random timer (e.g., with a value range of 1-10 seconds (interpreted as the wait range)) in response to receiving the broadcast information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Niemi into the invention of Park and Bakker to include the feature of when the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range upon selecting a PLMN for disaster roaming, the timer is started with a random number with the disaster roaming wait range, in order to bound the randomization to a range appropriate to the specific PLMN and disaster roaming scenario the UE has selected into, rather than staggering access attempts using a generic or unbounded random value that may not be calibrated to the network’s actual congestion characteristics, improving the predictability and effectiveness of the network’s access-staggering scheme (see Niemi; para. 29 & claim 14).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park, US 20230254733 A1, in view of Bakker, US 10880802 B1, in view of Lin, US 20220046742 A1, in view of Chiba, WO 2022154064 A1, as applied to claim 12, in view of Chun, US 20220070815 A1, further in view of Aghili (US PGPUB 2024/0080791 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba teaches the UE of claim 12. The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba further teaches wherein, after the release of the emergency call or the PDU session, (Lin; para. 29 - - teaches on the expiry of timer T3582, the UE performs a local release of the PDU session and performs a registration procedure)
The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba fails to clearly specify the UE is still camped on the selected PLMN for disaster roaming.
However, Chun teaches the UE is still camped on the selected PLMN for disaster roaming. (Chun; para. 398 - - teaches in a situation in which national roaming is possible (i.e., PLMN of the same country as HPLMN to which the UE subscribes), the UE may attempt the access/camping/registration to the corresponding PLMN only if the PLMN of the same country allows national roaming or disaster roaming).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chun into the invention of Park, Bakker, Lin, & Chiba to include the feature of the UE still being camped on the selected public land mobile network, PLMN, for disaster roaming, in order to avoid an unnecessary and disruptive cell/PLMN reselection immediately following release, when the UE has no indication that the disaster condition or its need for disaster roaming service has actually ended, improving the continuity and stability of the UEs disaster roaming service (see Chun; para. 398).
The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin, Chiba and Chun teach the method of claim 4. The combination of Park, Bakker, Lin and Chiba fails to teach if the UE does not (release) the emergency call or the PDU session upon expiration of the timer, performing a registration procedure for disaster roaming services.
However, Aghili teaches if the UE does not (release) the emergency call or the PDU session upon expiration of the timer, performing a registration procedure for disaster roaming services (Aghili; para. 118, 119 - - teaches at operation 2-4b, the first AMF 182D and the WTRU 102 may communicate information to register the WTRU 102 with the first PLMN 205D. The information may indicate disaster recovery parameters including, for example, any of: (1) one or more authorized PLMNs for disaster inbound roaming, (2) a disaster roaming registration time value (e.g., a registration timer value), (3) a DRF Fully Qualified Domain Name (FQDN) and/or (4) the incident identifier, among others. [0119] At operation 2-5a, the WTRU 102 may select the second PLMN 205A (e.g., as the target PLMN) based on the incident identifier associated with the disaster event. At operation 2-6, the WTRU 102 and the second AMF 182A may communicate. For example, the WTRU 102 may send registration information, to the second AMF 182A, to register the WTRU 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Aghili into the invention of Park, Bakker, Lin, Chiba and Chun to include the feature of if the UE does not (release) the emergency call or the PDU session upon expiration of the timer, performing a registration procedure for disaster roaming services, in order to minimize service interruptions during network failures and/or disasters (see Aghili; para. 2, 3).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Vamanan et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0225214 A1) is relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Vamanan discloses the PLMN may start a timer, which may be a certain amount (T1) longer than the periodic registration update time configured to the disaster roaming wireless devices, e.g., based on the indication that the disaster condition is no longer affecting the home PLMN of the wireless device. The PLMN may reject registration update requests by disaster roaming wireless devices during the time in which the timer T1 is running.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights