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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner Note:
The examiner would like to call attention to decisions by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit below regarding conditional language:
“When” and “if’ are conditional language. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the conditional "if" language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011,2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted"). "If" conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found because the step or function only occurs "if" the answer is positive. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the "if" condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARWAL et al. (US 20250301296 A1, hereinafter, "AGARWAL") in view of PARK et al. (US 20230156862 A1, hereinafter, "PARK"), FARD et al. (US 20250176056 A1, hereinafter, "FARD"), and SINHA et al. (US 20260019977 A1, hereinafter, "SINHA").
Regarding claim 6, AGARWAL teaches a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 0180; figure 6, UE:
102), the UE comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph 0180; figure 6, processor: 610);
and at least one computer memory (paragraph 0190; figure 6, memory: 630) operably
connectable to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least
one processor, perform operations comprising:
upon selecting a public land mobile network (PLMN), if the UE has a stored disaster roaming
wait range, generating a first random number within the disaster roaming wait range;
AGARWAL writes, “On selecting the PLMN for the disaster roaming as specified in third generation
partnership project (3GPP) Technical Specification (TS) 23.122... If the UE has a stored disaster roaming
wait range, the UE may generate a random number within the disaster roaming wait range and start a
timer with the generated random number” (paragraph 0011).
starting a first timer based on the generated first random number;
AGARWAL writes, “On selecting the PLMN for the disaster roaming as specified in third generation
partnership project (3GPP) Technical Specification (TS) 23.122... If the UE has a stored disaster roaming
wait range, the UE may generate a random number within the disaster roaming wait range and start a
timer with the generated random number” (paragraph 0011).
if the UE selects a first PLMN with a disaster condition and if the UE has the disaster return
wait range, generating a second random number with the disaster return wait range; and starting a
second timer with the generated second random number value,
AGARWAL writes, “...the UE selects any PLMN, which is an allowable PLMN for the UE 102, optionally it
may be MS determined PLMN with disaster condition or it may be PLMN previously with disaster
condition...the UE 102 may generate a random number within the disaster return wait range and start
the timer with the generated random number value” (paragraph 0196).
wherein while the first timer is running, the UE does not initiate an attach procedure on a
selected PLMN, except if the UE needs to request a packet data network (PDN) connection for
emergency bearer services,
AGARWAL writes, “If the UE has a stored disaster roaming wait range, the UE may generate a random
number within the disaster roaming wait range and start a timer with the generated random number.
While the timer is running, the UE may not initiate registration on the selected PLMN, except when the
UE needs to request an emergency protocol data unit (PDU) session” (paragraph 0011).
wherein while the second timer is running, the UE does not initiate a registration procedure
on the selected first PLMN, except if the UE needs to request an emergency protocol data unit (PDU)
session in which case the UE initiates the registration procedure,
AGARWAL writes, “While the timer is running, the UE 102 may not initiate registration on the selected
PLMN except if the UE 102 needs to request an emergency PDU session, in which case the UE 102 may
initiate the registration procedure for emergency services, set the 5GS registration type IE to
“emergency registration” in the REGISTRATION REQUEST message or any NAS signalling message and
keep the timer running” (paragraph 0196).
and wherein upon expiry of the second timer based on the disaster return wait range, the UE
does not start the second timer with the disaster return wait range again until the UE selects a PLMN
for a disaster roaming service,
AGARWAL writes, “In another embodiment, the UE may not re-start the timer for disaster return wait
range after power up, i.e., the timer may not be continued, and the UE may perform registration
immediately if the UE selects the PLMN” (paragraph 0060). AGARWAL adds, “Upon expiration of the
timer, if the UE 102 does not have the emergency PDU session, the UE 102 may perform the registration
procedure for disaster roaming services if still camped on the selected PLMN” (paragraph 0196).
AGARWAL continues, “In an embodiment, the UE 102 being switched ON or recovered from lack of
coverage, if the RPLMN is a PLMN with which the MS was registered for disaster roaming services and
the UE 102 selects an allowable PLMN for normal services, if the UE 102 has a stored disaster return
wait range, the UE 102 may NOT generate the random number within the disaster return wait range and
may NOT start the timer with the generated random number value. The UE 102 may perform a
registration procedure or any NAS/AS signalling procedure on the selected PLMN” (paragraph 0197).
AGARWAL mentions, “While the timer is running, the UE 102 may not initiate registration on the
selected PLMN except if the UE 102 needs to request the emergency PDU session...” (paragraph 0200).
AGARWAL fails to explicitly disclose information regarding, “if the UE supports a minimization
of service interruption (MINT) - evolved packet system (EPS) and if a detach is triggered due to a
disaster condition no longer being applicable in a current location of the UE,”, “receiving a detach
request message including a disaster return wait range;”, and “and wherein if the UE supporting the MINT-EPS sets a MINT-EPS bit to ‘MINT-EPS supported’ in a UE network capability of an attach request message, if the UE receives an attach reject message including a cause indicating ‘disaster roaming for a determined PLMN with disaster condition not allowed’, the UE does not attempt to an attach procedure for a disaster roaming service on the PLMN for a UE determined PLMN with the disaster condition for a period in a range of 12 to 24 hours.”
However, in analogous art, PARK teaches if the UE supports a minimization of service
interruption (MINT) - evolved packet system (EPS) and if a detach is triggered due to a disaster
condition no longer being applicable in a current location of the UE,
PARK writes, “In an aspect, a method performed by a user equipment (UE) operating in a wireless
communication system is provided. The method includes receiving a Configuration Update Command
message including information indicating that a disaster condition of a Home PLMN (HPLMN) has ended
from a disaster roaming PLMN, waiting until a service being received from the disaster roaming PLMN is
ended, after the service received from the disaster roaming PLMN is ended, performing a deregistration
procedure with the disaster roaming PLMN based on the information indicating that the disaster
condition of the HPLMN is ended” (paragraph 0009). PARK adds, “In FIG. 7, it is shown as an example
that MINT is applied in an Evolved Packet System (EPS), but MINT may also be applied in a 5G system”
(paragraph 0286; figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of AGARWAL to include aspects described by PARK that “relates to a method for supporting service continuity at the end of a disaster situation and an apparatus for supporting the same.” PARK provides the motivation for modification stating, “The present disclosure can have various advantageous effects. For example, when a disaster situation ends, a UE that has been using disaster roaming from a disaster roaming communication network can return to the original communication network after normally ending the ongoing service without interruption, thereby improving the user experience of the UE” (paragraphs 0011-0012).
AGARWAL and PARK fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “receiving a detach request message including a disaster return wait range;” and “and wherein if the UE supporting the MINT-EPS sets a MINT-EPS bit to ‘MINT-EPS supported’ in a UE network capability of an attach request message, if the UE receives an attach reject message including a cause indicating ‘disaster roaming for a determined PLMN with disaster condition not allowed’, the UE does not attempt to an attach procedure for a disaster roaming service on the PLMN for a UE determined PLMN with the disaster condition for a period in a range of 12 to 24 hours.”
However, in analogous art, FARD teaches receiving a detach request message including a
disaster return wait range;
FARD writes, “In an example, the AMF may send to the UE a NAS message, a message, and/or the like. In
an example the NAS message or the message may be a registration accept message. The registration
accept message may comprise one or more parameters (e.g., comprising: 5G-GUTI, Registration Area,
[Mobility restrictions]... [Disaster Return wait range information])” (paragraph 0342). FARD continues,
“In CM connected 970, the UE can communicate with core network functions using NAS signaling. As an
example, the UE may exchange NAS signaling with an AMF for registration management purposes,
service request procedures, and/or authentication procedures. As another example, the UE may exchange NAS signaling, with an SMF, to establish and/or modify a PDU session. The network may
disconnect the UE, or the UE may disconnect itself (AN signaling connection release 976). For example, if
the UE transitions to RM deregistered 940, then the UE may also transition to CM idle 960. When the UE
transitions to CM idle 960, the network may deactivate a user plane connection of a PDU session of the
UE” (paragraph 0139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of AGARWAL and PARK to include aspects described by FARD in which “a wireless device receives, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) in a first non-access stratum (NAS) message, parameters comprising a reporting configuration for a deterministic network (DetNet) node.” FARD provides the motivation for modification stating, “The deployments 1410, 1420, 1430 communicate via an interface 1490. The deployments 1410, 1420, 1430 may have different physical locations with different signal propagation delays relative to other network elements. The diversity of physical locations of deployments 1410, 1420, 1430 may enable provision of services to a wide area with improved speed, coverage, security, and/or efficiency” (paragraph 0191).
AGARWAL, PARK, and FARD fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “and wherein if the UE supporting the MINT-EPS sets a MINT-EPS bit to ‘MINT-EPS supported’ in a UE network capability of an attach request message, if the UE receives an attach reject message including a cause indicating ‘disaster roaming for a determined PLMN with disaster condition not allowed’, the UE does not attempt to an attach procedure for a disaster roaming service on the PLMN for a UE determined PLMN with the disaster condition for a period in a range of 12 to 24 hours.”
However, in analogous art, SINHA teaches and wherein if the UE supporting the MINT-EPS sets a MINT-EPS bit to ‘MINT-EPS supported’ in a UE network capability of an attach request message, if the UE receives an attach reject message including a cause indicating ‘disaster roaming for a determined PLMN with disaster condition not allowed’, the UE does not attempt to an attach procedure for a disaster roaming service on the PLMN for a UE determined PLMN with the disaster condition for a period in a range of 12 to 24 hours.
SINHA writes, “When the UE initiates Attach or TAU procedure, it indicates support for S&F mode to the MME following existing NAS capability, the MME sends Attach or TAU Reject message to the UE if these procedures cannot be completed due to S&F operation. The Attach or TAU Reject message includes: a) A new information indicating the UE that attach or TAU procedure cannot be completed because of the S&F operation... b) Wait timer: Indicates to the UE the time it should wait before re-attempting the Attach/TAU procedure in the current or another satellite of the same PLMN” (paragraphs 0286-0288). SINHA explains when the UE initiates the attach procedure, it indicates support for S&F mode. Likewise, the UE can indicate support for MINT-EPS. If the UE receives an attach reject message, the attach reject message includes information indicating the UE attach procedure cannot be completed, and a wait timer that indicates the UE the time it should wait before re-attempting the attach procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of AGARWAL, PARK, and FARAD to include aspects described by SINHA that “relates to third generation partnership project (3GPP) networks. More particularly, the disclosure relates to managing satellite parameters in 3GPP networks.” The motivation to include the prior art of SINHA is the prior art addresses attach procedures and requests including attach accept/reject and wait times.
Regarding claim 9, AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA teach the UE of claim 6, wherein the
operations further comprise:
Additionally, AGARWAL teaches upon expiration of the first timer, if the UE does not have a
PDN connection for emergency bearer services, performing the attach procedure for a disaster
roaming service if still camped on the selected PLMN.
AGARWAL writes, “Upon expiration of the timer, if the UE does not have an emergency PDU session, the
UE may perform the registration procedure for the disaster roaming services as described in 3GPP
standard specification, provided if the UE is still camped on the selected PLMN” (paragraph 0011).
Claims 1 and 11 are method and chipset claims corresponding to the apparatus claim 6 that has
already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 6. Claims 1
and 11 are rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claims 4 and 14 are method and chipset claims corresponding to the apparatus claim 9 that has
already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 9. Claims 4
and 14 are rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Claim(s) 2, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, and further in view of JUNG et al. (US 20260040206 A1, hereinafter, "JUNG").
Regarding claim 7, AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA teach the UE of claim 6, wherein the
operations further comprise:
AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “transmitting capability information indicating a support of the MINT-EPS.”
However, in analogous art, JUNG teaches transmitting capability information indicating a
support of the MINT-EPS.
JUNG writes, “The method of claim 16, further comprising: transmitting, to the first cell of the base
station, capability information in the RRC connected state, the capability information including
information indicating that the terminal supports to access the SIB-less NES cell” (claim 19). JUNG
indicates transmitting capability information including information in regards to what the terminal
supports. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art can discern that the terminal may indicate a support
of the MINT-EPS, if the teachings of JUNG are applied in a similar manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA to include aspects described by JUNG that “relates to a method and an apparatus for supporting access by a terminal to a NES cell.” JUNG provides the motivation for modification stating, “According to an example of the present disclosure, by allowing an anchor cell located around an SIB-less NES cell to appropriately provide information necessary for access to the SIB-less NES cell, connection re-establishment of the SIB-less NES cell, etc., through various signaling and parameters, it is possible to support access by a terminal” (paragraph 0015).
Claims 2 and 12 are method and chipset claims corresponding to the apparatus claim 7 that has
already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 7. Claims 2
and 12 are rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 above, and further in view of WATFA et al. (US 20240056947 A1, hereinafter, "WATFA").
Regarding claim 8, AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA teach the UE of claim 6,
AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein the detach request message further includes a cause value set to ‘roaming not allowed in this tracking area’.”
However, in analogous art, WATFA teaches wherein the detach request message further
includes a cause value set to "roaming not allowed in this tracking area".
WATFA writes, “The MME may send an ESM STATUS message and include any ESM cause value such as
ESM/EMM cause value #78 or any existing cause value; Optionally, after taking any of the actions above,
the MME may initiate a detach procedure and include cause #78 in a detach request message...
(paragraphs 0130-0131). The UE may, e.g., upon receipt of any ESM message with cause #78 or any
EMM message that has been proposed above with cause value #78, change its EMM state to any state
of the EMM-DEREGISTERED state, or any substate of the EMM-REGISTERED state such as EMM-
REGISTERED.LIMITED-SERVICE, EMM-REGISTERED PLMN-SEARCH, REGISTERED. EMM-UPDATE-NEEDED.
The UE may also change its EPS update status to EU2: NOT UPDATED or to EU3: ROAMING NOT
ALLOWED. Additionally or optionally the UE may perform a tracking area update procedure or an attach
procedure” (paragraph 0134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA to include aspects described by WATFA that “the present disclosure provide various techniques relating to methods for handling non-access stratum (NAS) messages for user equipments (UEs) using satellite access from a non-allowed location, for example within 3.sup.rd generation partnership project (3GPP) 5th generation (5G) new radio (NR) and NR-based relay networks.” WATFA provides the motivation for modification stating, “The present disclosure provides an effective and efficient method for handling NAS messages for UEs using satellite access from a non-allowed location” (paragraph 0013).
Claims 3 and 13 are method and chipset claims corresponding to the apparatus claim 8 that has
already been rejected above. The applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 8. Claims 3
and 13 are rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KUMAR et al. (US 20230147410 A1, hereinafter, "KUMAR").
Regarding claim 16, AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA teach the method of claim 1,
AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA fail to explicitly disclose information regarding, “wherein when the UE initiates an attach procedure for disaster roaming services, when the UE has determined a determined PLMN with disaster condition, and when an additional globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) is included in an attach request message and does not contain a valid GUTI mapped from a 5G-GUTI which was previously assigned, the UE includes in the attach request message the determined PLMN with disaster condition.”
However, in analogous art, KUMAR teaches wherein when the UE initiates an attach procedure for disaster roaming services, when the UE has determined a determined PLMN with disaster condition, and when an additional globally unique temporary identifier (GUTI) is included in an attach request message and does not contain a valid GUTI mapped from a 5G-GUTI which was previously assigned, the UE includes in the attach request message the determined PLMN with disaster condition.
KUMAR writes, “Specifically, Document C1-216938 provides the following regarding when the UE should
send this IE to the network: If the UE initiates the registration procedure for disaster roaming services
and: the PLMN with disaster condition is the HPLMN and the 5GS mobile identity IE contains neither the
SUCI nor a valid 5G-GUTI that was previously assigned by the HPLMN; or the PLMN with disaster
condition is not the HPLMN and the 5GS mobile identity IE does not contain a valid 5G-GUTI that was
previously assigned by the PLMN with disaster condition; then the UE shall include in the REGISTRATION
REQUEST message the PLMN with disaster condition IE indicating the PLMN with disaster condition”
(paragraphs 0019-0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and invention of AGARWAL, PARK, FARD, and SINHA to include aspects described by KUMAR that “relates generally to improvements in providing disaster roaming service, and more particularly, to minimization of service interruption (MINT).” The motivation to include the prior art of KUMAR is based on the explanation and reference to document C1-216938 (PLMN with disaster condition, 3GPP TSG-CT WG1 Meeting #133-e, 11-19 Nov. 2021). In which the document includes information on 5G-GUTI in PLMN disaster conditions.
Claims 5, 10, and 15 have been cancelled by the applicant, respectfully.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A REYES whose telephone number is (703)756-4558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EDT.
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, KHALED KASSIM can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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 A. Reyes/Examiner, Art Unit 2475 10/8/2026
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
