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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Office Action
The response filed on 4/23/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment/Remarks
Claims 32-40 have been elected. Claims 21-31 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 21-40 remain pending in the application.
Examiner thanks applicant for their thoughtful remarks which have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive. technology. Applicant contends that the inventions are not distinct. The claims do present different issues. Groups 1 and 2 contain issues regarding 35 USC 101, not seen in group 3. This is the first identifier that the claims contain separate groups. The instant claims deal with 5G. In this realm, the most obvious analogy would be a cell phone and a cell tower. Both of which communicate together, yet remain distinct inventions even if they work together. The cell phone and the tower perform separate and distinct functions internally, even though the operate in the same realm. The same exists for the instant claims. The restriction requirement is maintained. Examiner respectfully apologizes that the requirement contained a typographical error referring to ballots. However, this does not detract from the overall contention of the requirement.
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 39-40 overcome the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims.
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 of this title, 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) 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2020/0245218 A1), in view of Yang (US 2021/0021993 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Wang teaches:
“A method, applied to a third communication apparatus (Wang Fig 2, mobility management network element of the first network), comprising: receiving a first identifier (Wang, ¶ 52-55 and 57, access network sends first handover request to mobility management network element of the first network. The request includes an identifier which includes SUPI, the Subscription Permanent Identifier); and sending the first identifier to a second communication apparatus (Wang, ¶ 89-90 the mobility management network element of the first network sends a second handover request to the mobility management network element of the second network. Wang, ¶ 86, the second handover request contains the identifier of the terminal device. Examiner notes that Wang Fig. 2 has a typo and the element on the right is the mobility management network element of the second network as described in Wang ¶ 89)”.
Wang does not, but in related art, Yang teaches:
“first domain information (Yang, ¶ 3-4, SUPI contains a mobile network code of its subscriber network), wherein the first identifier comprises an encrypted identifier of a first communication apparatus (Yang, ¶ 3-4, SUPI typically not sent in the clear and encrypted as SUCI), and the first domain information indicates a domain in which a network element that manages data information of the first communication apparatus is located (Yang, ¶ 3-4, SUPI contains a mobile network code of its subscriber network)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wang and Yang, to modify the 5G/4G handover system of Wang to include the generic implementation of 5G data structures as taught in Yang. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 33, Wang and Yang teaches:
“The method according to claim 32 (Wang and Yang teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the first domain information is carried in a field of the first identifier (Yang, ¶ 3-4, SUPI contains a mobile network code of its subscriber network)”.
Regarding claim 34, Wang and Yang teaches:
“The method according to claim 32 (Wang and Yang teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the first domain information corresponds to a group to which the first communication apparatus belongs (Yang, ¶ 3-4, SUPI contains a mobile network code of its subscriber network)”.
Regarding claim 35, Wang and Yang teaches:
“The method according to claim 32 (Wang and Yang teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the first domain information comprises identification information or address information of the domain in which the network element that manages the data information of the first communication apparatus is located (Yang, ¶ 3-4, SUPI contains a mobile network code of its subscriber network)”.
Regarding claim 36, Wang and Yang teaches:
“The method according to claim 32 (Wang and Yang teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the first identifier further comprises an identifier that is of a third network element and that is determined based on a mapping relationship between an identifier of the first communication apparatus and the identifier of the third network element (Wang, ¶ 77-82 teaches mapping system to determine the relationship between the third network information to determine the appropriate handover)”.
Regarding claim 37, Wang and Yang teaches:
“The method according to claim 32 (Wang and Yang teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), further comprising: receiving a first message from the second communication apparatus, wherein the first message comprises related information of a third network element, and the related information of the third network element comprises address information of the third network element or identification information of the third network element (Wang, ¶ 77-82 teaches mapping system to determine the relationship between the third network information to determine the appropriate handover); and sending a second message to the third network element based on the first message, wherein the second message is for sending an access request of the first communication apparatus or a request for obtaining the data information of the first communication apparatus (Wang, ¶ 87-89, the second request is based on the information of the first request)”.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Yang in view of Tan (US 2009/0319774 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Wang and Yang teaches:
“The method according to claim 32 (Wang and Yang teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Wang and Yang does not, but in related art, Tan teaches:
“wherein the network element that manages the data information of the first communication apparatus is the second communication apparatus, and the method further comprises: performing hash processing on the first domain information, to determine the second communication apparatus (Yan, ¶ 67 teaches hashing the domain information for a communication system)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Wang, Tan, and Yang, to modify the 5G/4G handover system of Wang and Yang to include process of hashing domain information as taught in Tan. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST).
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, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights