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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #133-e C1-216597 E-Meeting, 11-19 November 2021 (Reference in IDS).
Regarding Claim 1, 3GPP teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a non-terrestrial network (Page 6 Para 9 and 11, if the MS detects a PLMN in satellite NG-RAN access technology i.e., performed by a UE in a non-terrestrial network which is part of the list of "PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location", it shall not consider the PLMN as PLMN selection candidate for satellite NG-RAN access technology), the UE comprising:
identifying whether the UE is in a limited service state (Page 7 Note 2, The applicability of a MS in limited service state camping on a PLMN whose PLMN ID is in the list of "PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location" i.e., the UE is in a limited service state);
identifying whether an entry of a public land mobile network (PLMN) from a list of PLMNs not allowed to operate at a current location of the UE is removed (Page 6 Para 13, list of "PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location" is deleted i.e., entry of a public land mobile network (PLMN) from a list of PLMNs not allowed to operate at a current location when the MS is switched off or when the SIM is removed i.e., UE is removed. A PLMN ID is removed from the list of "PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location"); and
performing a PLMN selection (Page 6 Para 2, the MS should add the identity of the PLMN to the list of PLMNs i.e., performing a PLMN selection) in case that the entry is removed from the list of PLMNs and the UE is in the limited service state (Page 6 para 11-13, PLMN selection i.e., To prevent repeated attempts to obtain service on a PLMN through satellite NG-RAN access technology, when the MS receives a reject message with cause value "PLMN not allowed to operate at the present UE location" from a satellite NG-RAN cell, the MS shall store the PLMN ID of the rejecting PLMN in the list of "PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location" i.e., performing a PLMN selection in case that the entry is removed from the list of PLMNs and the UE is in the limited service state).
Regarding Claim 2, 3GPP teaches further comprising: removing the entry from the list of PLMNs in case that the UE is successfully registered via the satellite next generation radio access network (NG-RAN) access technology to a PLMN stored in the entry and UE is not registered for emergency services (Page 6 Last Para).
Regarding Claim 3, 3GPP teaches further comprising: removing the entry from the list of PLMNs in case that a timer instance associated with the entry is expired (Page 6 Last Para).
Regarding Claim 6, 3GPP teaches wherein the list of PLMNs is stored in non-volatile memory of the UE in case that the UE is switched off (Page 6 Para 13).
Regarding Claim 7, 3GPP teaches wherein the list of PLMNs is deleted from the UE in case that a universal subscriber identity module (USIM) is removed from the UE (Page 6 Para 13).
Regarding Claim 8, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches a user equipment (UE) in a non-terrestrial network (Page 6 Para 9 and 11, if the MS detects a PLMN in satellite NG-RAN access technology i.e., performed by a UE in a non-terrestrial network which is part of the list of "PLMNs not allowed to operate at the present UE location", it shall not consider the PLMN as PLMN selection candidate for satellite NG-RAN access technology), the UE comprising: a communicator; and a controller (UE inherently has communicator and a controller in order to communicate).
Regarding Claim 9, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #133-e C1-216597 E-Meeting, 11-19 November 2021 (Reference in IDS) in view of Huang-Fu et al. Pub. No. US 20190357116 A1
Regarding Claim 4, 3GPP discuss about the time instances but does not specifically disclose wherein the timer instance is set to a first value that is not smaller than a second value indicated by a network.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang-Fu teaches from Fig. 6 and Para 34 that at step 601, a UE registers or attaches to a mobile communication network having a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) ID. In step 602, the UE receives a reject message from the network. The reject message has no integrity protection. In step 603, the UE starts a timer and adding the PLMN ID to an extension of a Forbidden PLMN list. The UE refrains from attaching to the mobile communication network having the PLMN ID while the PLMN ID is stored in the extension of the Forbidden PLMN list. In step 604, the UE removes the PLMN ID from the extension of the Forbidden PLMN list upon timer expiry i.e., the timer instance is set to a first value that is not smaller than a second value indicated by a network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of 3GPP with the method of Huang-Fu so that the UE is able to make effective and efficient decision on network selection and thus enhance service recovery performance (See Huang-Fu Para 33).
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #133-e C1-216597 E-Meeting, 11-19 November 2021 (Reference in IDS) in view of Catovic et al. Pub. No. US 20220110051 A1
Regarding Claim 5, 3GPP does not specifically teach removing the entry from the list of PLMNs in case that current UE location is known, a geographical location is stored in the UE for the entry and a distance from the geographical location to the current UE location is larger than a third value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Catovic teaches from Fig. 9 how a UE may perform the operations where PLMN selection for satellite access. As discussed at 902, the UE determines that it wishes to select a PLMN for satellite access. At 904, the UE determines the country of its location. At 906, the UE searches for available PLMNs (e.g., scanning for broadcast PLMN information). At 908, the UE creates a list of available PLMNs (e.g., List A). Each PLMN in List A may have an associated list of countries in which it is allowed to be selected. AT 910, the UE, eliminates, from List A, all PLMNs that are not allowed to be selected in Country X (the location of the UE). The list may then be referred to as List B. At 912, the UE, for each PLMN in List B, looks up in USIM whether it is allowed to be selected in its country. At 914, the UE eliminates, from List B, all PLMNs that are not allowed to be selected in its country based on the configuration in USIM. The list may then be referred to as List C. Finally, at 916, the UE performs legacy PLMN selection using List C as the list of available PLMNs i.e., removing the entry from the list of PLMNs in case that current UE location is known, a geographical location is stored in the UE for the entry and a distance from the geographical location to the current UE location is larger than a third value (Para 91-98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of 3GPP with the method of Catovic so as to provide reliable connectivity to areas which were previously difficult to connect thus provide valuable option to expand coverage and access to previously unserved communities (See Catovic Para 5).
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ECC Report 324 Nov 2021
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights