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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/01/26 have been fully considered but they are moot due to new ground rejection shown below.
For claim 17, Applicant argues:
a) Wei does not discloses claim limitation “not trigger registration of the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI when the UE moves out from the tracking area” because cited [0148] “at most discloses service request decisions …, but not a decision about whether to trigger registration. …, Wei’s concept of deciding which slice to use for a service request … is fundamentally different from the concept of not triggering registration for an S-NSSAI when the UE moves out from the tracking areas.” (p3, 4th para).
b) Wei in view of Liu does not teach claim limitation “initiate PDU session establishment for the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI only when the UE is in the tracking area where the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI is supported” because cited [0134] of Wei “merely discloses the registration accept message can indicate already-established PDU sessions, but Wei does not teach initiate PDU session establishment”, let alone doing so conditionally based on tracking area support. And “Liu at most discloses using Allowed NSSAI for PDU session establishment generally, but does not teach the expressly claimed conditional limitation that PDU sessions are initiated “only when the UE is in a tracking areas where the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI is supported.” (p4, 2nd para).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees:
a) Wei recites in [0148] recites “The user equipment checks the stored TAI list 202, and knows the supported slices in the current slice support area. Such slice support information can be used by the user equipment to decide which network slice shall be used to initiate a service request. …”, suggesting only slices in the TAI list 202 can be used by UE. The requested slices will not be in TAI list if UE is not in the tracking area. In such case, the registration of the S-NSSAI NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI is not triggered because the requested slices cannot be provided.
b) [0134] of Wei teaches that PDU sessions are established only a Registration Accept message is issued. Liu further discloses “… The UE subsequently carries an S-NSSAI in the Allowed NSSAI in the PDU session setup request message to establish a corresponding PDU session” in p13. Therefore, Wei in view of Liu discloses the claim limitation “initiate PDU session establishment for the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI only when the UE is in the tracking area where the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI is supported”.
Applicant’s arguments for other claims are based on the arguments to claim 17, to which Examiner’s responses are the same as stated above.
Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Examiner maintains the rejection based on 103 for claims 17-20.
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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (US 20200205065 A1) in view of Liu (WO 2019219055 A1).
For claim 17, Wei discloses a User Equipment (FIG. 3, UE), comprising: one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: 6-7, 25, 49, 88, 112, 146-148, claim 8
transmit, to a network node for mobility management, a request message including a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) in a requested NSSAI (FIGs. 1-5, (such as FIG. 4, step 1 “Registration Request” is transmitted from UE to RAN) and the associated text, such as “[0129] In step 1, the user equipment 402 sends a Registration Request to the RAN 406 This request can comprise information about a network slice that the user equipment 402 wants to initiate and/or information about network slice(s) that the user equipment 402 can or is authorized to use” and “[0108] FIG. 2 shows slice support information 216 according to an embodiment.” And “[0023] … a network slice is identified by a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance information, S-NSSAI. The slice support information for a given slice support area comprises the S-NSSAI of at least one network slice supported or not supported by the given slice support area.”)
receive, from the network node, a response message related to the request message, the response message including an allowed NSSAI including the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI and a list comprising tracking areas where an S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI is supported (FIG. 4, step 21, “Registration Accepted” received at UE, and the associated text, such as “[0025] … a slice support area is a Tracking Area and is identified by a Tracking Area identity, TAI. A TAI list comprises the TAI of each Tracking Area comprised in the registration area. The network entity is adapted to associate, to each given TAI of the TAI list, an S-NSSAI list comprising the S-NSSAI of at least one network slice supported or not supported by the Tracking Area identified by the given TAI. The network entity is adapted to transmit, to the user equipment, the TAI list and the respective S-NSSAI list associated to each TAI of the TAI list.” and “[0112] In the embodiment of FIG. 2, a slice support area is preferably in the form of a tracking area, and the slice support area is identified by a Tracking Area identity (TAI) 204. The registration area 200 is defined by a TAI list 22. The TAI list 202 comprises the TAI 204 of all slice support areas comprised in the registration area 200.” and [0147]);
not trigger registration of the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI when the UE moves out from the tracking area (“[0148] When crossing the boundary of slice support areas in the registration area, the user equipment intercepts the TAI 204 of the current slice support area from the RAN (e.g. by intercepting system information from a radio broadcast channel). The user equipment checks the stored TAI list 202, and knows the supported slices in the current slice support area. Such slice support information can be used by the user equipment to decide which network slice shall be used to initiate a service request. …”; suggesting no service request for registration of the S-NSSAI is needed if a UE move from one supported area to another supported area in the registration area); and
Wei further teaches established Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions the tracking area (“[0134] The Registration Accept message can indicate one or more established Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions to the user equipment in a PDU session status.”); and does not state but Liu, in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, discloses initiate PDU session establishment for the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI only when the UE is in a tracking area where the S-NSSAI of the allowed NSSAI is supported (p13, “3. Allowed NSSAI … The UE subsequently carries an S-NSSAI in the Allowed NSSAI in the PDU session setup request message to establish a corresponding PDU session”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Liu above to the establishing PCU sessions by Wei to yield a predicable result of establishing PCU sessions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the application to combine Wei and Liu for the benefit of establishing PCU sessions ([0134] of Wei).
Claim 18 is rejected because it is the method performed by the UE of claim 17 and has the same subject matter.
As to claims 19 and 20, Wei in view of Liu discloses claims 17 and 18, Liu further discloses: wherein the not triggering registration of the S- NSSAI based on the tracking area of support for the S-NSSAI comprises not triggering the registration when the UE moves between the tracking area of support and a tracking area of non- support for the S-NSSAI (p25, last two paras “The terminal determines, according to the first UE configuration update message, an opportunity to initiate a registration request … in the case that the terminal receives the indication information of the initiation of the registration request before entering the idle state, the terminal moves out of the specific registration area or the tracking area or the tracking area or the periodic position. When the update timer expires, the terminal performs a registration request process”, suggesting UE does not trigger registration request until after a period of time specified by a timer, regardless if UE is in a tracking area supporting S-NSSAI or not). The motivation of combining Wei and Liu to provide a delay to avoid excessive registrations (p25, last two paras of Liu).
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 JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights