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
a. Claims 1-17 and 21-23 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
b. This is a final action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 12/04/2024.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 21 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's arguments, see “Applicant respectfully submits Raghuram also does not teach or suggest sending information to a User Equipment (UE) “via a second PLMN,” or that such information indicates “at least one Visited PLMN (VPLMN).” Rather, as noted in paragraph [0021], Raghuram discloses PLMN selection that is based on 3GPP TS 23.122. Therefore, even if the disclosure of Velev was modified based on Raghuram, such a modification would not result in information being sent via a second PLMN, and such information indicating at least one VPLMN and causing the UE to prioritize the at least one VPLMN in PLMN selection.” on page 13, filed on 09/09/2025, with respect to Velev US 20190261185 (hereinafter “Velev”), and in view of Raghuram et al. US Pub 2004/0224689 (hereinafter “Raghuram”), have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Raghuram clearly discloses sending the information (“Typically, when turned on the radiotelephone camps on the last registered PLMN. If the last registered PLMN is a VPLMN, then other higher priority PLMNs may be available. Therefore, several other higher priority networks can be available to the MS” [0021]) to a User Equipment (UE) (i.e. “MS”) via a second PLMN (“Referring to FIG. 3, in the case where the MS is roaming, it may register and camp 30 on a base station of a Visited PLMN (VPLMN), in accordance with a further embodiment of the present invention. This can occur when the MS roams from its HPLMN (A) (i.e. first PLMN) to previously camped higher priority PLMN or to a lower priority PLMN. This can also occur when the MS roams from a previously camped higher priority PLMN (B) to a lower priority PLMN. The VPLMN can consist of one or more different radio access technologies, such as GSM and WCDMA, for example. Typically, when turned on the radiotelephone camps on the last registered PLMN. If the last registered PLMN is a VPLMN, then other higher priority PLMNs (i.e. second PLMN) may be available. Therefore, several other higher priority networks can be available to the MS. The priority of available networks is determined through the predetermined priority provided on the mobile unit's Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card.” [0021]) to cause the UE to prioritize the at least one VPLMN in PLMN selection (“Currently, GSM and UMTS cellular phones are required to perform a periodic search for higher priority PLMN, or their home PLMN (HPLMN) whenever the radiotelephone is camped on a Visited PLMN (VPLMN) and in their home country.” [0003]).
The Raghuram’s reference, as combined with the Velev’s reference, discloses each and every limitation of the present claims, and therefore render the claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 21 obvious as both references teach prioritization of PLMNs while the UE is roaming. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness MPEP § 2141. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 21 are still being rejected on the same grounds for rejection as before.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev US 20190261185 (hereinafter “Velev”), and in view of Raghuram et al. US Pub 2004/0224689 (hereinafter “Raghuram”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended)
Velev discloses a network node (“network unit 104” in Fig. 3) associated with a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) (“In some embodiments, a UE provisioning performed by a HPLMN (i.e. first Public Land Mobile Network) is referred to as a default UE network slice configuration and may contain configured NSSAI for the HPLMN and one or more default configured NSSAIs for other PLMNs” [0062]), comprising:
at least one memory (“memory 304” in Fig. 3); and
at least one processor (“processor 302” in Fig. 3) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtain information indicating at least one Visited PLMN (VPLMN) (“the configured NSSAI may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN” [0092]) that is capable of providing an equivalent network slice to a first network slice of the first PLMN (“The UDM/UDR 410 may also indicate to the serving AMF 406 (e.g., in the HPLMN) a list of PLMN IDs to which subscribed S-NSSAIs are applicable. This indication may be called, for example, ‘Applicability of Subscribed S-NSSAIs to PLMN(s)’. This indication may also indicate ‘all PLMNs’ for which no other configured NSSAI is provided, in which case the configured NSSAI (equivalent to network slice) may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN. This indication may enable the serving AMF 406 to indicate to the UE 402 to which other PLMNs, besides the HPLMN, the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN (equivalent to first network slice of the first PLMN) is applicable” [0092]); and wherein
the first PLMN is a Home PLMN (HPLMN) of the UE (“if the UE 502 is registered in the HPLMN (e.g., the serving AMF 506 is in the HPLMN)” [0116]), and
the second PLMN is a PLMN different from the first PLMN (“the configured NSSAIs for other PLMNs” [0116]).
` Velev does not specifically teach send the information to a User Equipment (UE) to cause the UE to prioritize the at least one VPLMN in PLMN selection.
In an analogous art, Raghuram discloses send the information (“Typically, when turned on the radiotelephone camps on the last registered PLMN. If the last registered PLMN is a VPLMN, then other higher priority PLMNs may be available. Therefore, several other higher priority networks can be available to the MS. The priority of available networks is determined through the predetermined priority provided on the mobile unit's Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card.” [0021]) to a User Equipment (UE) (e.g. “radiotelephone” or “MS” in Fig. 3) to cause the UE to prioritize the at least one VPLMN in PLMN selection (“When camped on a lower priority VPLMN and the only higher priority PLMN is the HPLMN, the present invention provides that the radiotelephone scan 32 only in those RATs and frequencies indicated by the stored inclusive list obtained earlier from the HPLMN… Similarly, when camped on a lower priority VPLMN and the MS has lists of RATs and frequencies of higher priority PLMNs and the HPLMN, the present invention provides that the radiotelephone scan 32 those RATs and frequencies indicated by both stored inclusive lists obtained earlier from the HPLMN and higher priority PLMN.” [0022-0023]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, to include Raghuram’s method for a radiotelephone to scan for a higher priority (including home) public land mobile network (PLMN), in order to efficiently search for prioritized PLMNs and/or VPLMNs (Raghuram [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Raghuram’s method for a radiotelephone to scan for a higher priority (including home) public land mobile network (PLMN) into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 1,
Velev further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to send the information to the UE (“if the UE 502 is registered in a VPLMN (e.g., the Serving AMF 506 is in VPLMN, called vAMF), the UDM/UDR 510 includes in signaling to the serving AMF 506 at least one of the following: a SUPI; new subscribed S-NSSAIs; configured NSSAI for HPLMN; configured NSSAIs for other PLMNs; and/or IMEI. In some embodiments, information about the configured NSSAI for HPLMN and the configured NSSAIs for other PLMNs may be included in a container transparent to the vAMF containing a list of S-NSSAIs that may be provided to the UE 506 from the vAMF” [0116]) based on the at least one processor receiving an identifier of the first network slice from the UE (“In a first communication 614 transmitted from the UE 602 to the RAN 604, the UE 602 may send a NAS registration request message to the RAN 604 that may include: a UE ID (e.g., SUPI); a registration type (e.g., initial, mobility), and/or a requested NSSAI” [0126]) via the second PLMN (“In a second communication 616 transmitted from the RAN 604 to the serving vAMF 606 (i.e. second PLMN), the RAN 604 may send the NAS registration request message to the serving vAMF 606” [0127]) during a registration procedure of the UE to the second PLMN (e.g. aforesaid registration request message) and the second PLMN not providing the equivalent network slice (“In some embodiments, the UDM/UDR 612 includes in the fourth communication 620 an indication about whether the configured NSSAI for HPLMN has been provided to the UE 602. For example, this indication may be indicated by an IE having different values (e.g., ‘Configured NSSAI for HPLMN Provisioned’=TRUE (or FALSE)).” [0129]).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses The network node according to claim 2,
Velev further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether to send the information to the UE based on priority information of the first network slice included in subscriber data of the UE (“As used herein, “subscription information” may mean subscription data which may contain one or more parameters stored in a UDR. In some embodiments, subscription information (i.e. subscriber data) may include policy data (i.e. priority information) and/or structured data for internal exposure and/or external exposure. The subscription information may be downloaded in a UDM, and the UDM may send the subscription information to other NFs such as AMF, SMF, and so forth. Therefore, the term UDM/UDR may be used to refer to the combined functions of the UDR and the UDM” [0063]).
Regarding claim 5
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 2,
Velev further discloses wherein the identifier of the first network slice of the first PLMN is sent to the second PLMN in the registration procedure (“After the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN or the configured NSSAI for the serving PLMN have been updated in the UE 502, in a fifth communication 528 between the UE 502, the RAN 504, the serving AMF 506, the NSSF 508, and/or the UDM/UDR 510, the UE 502 may initiate a registration procedure as per TS 23.502 to signal a new requested NSSAI based on the new configured NSSAI for the HPLMN or the configured NSSAI for the serving PLMN parameters” [0123]).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 1,
Velev further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to send the information to the UE based on the at least one processor receiving from the UE, via the second PLMN, an indication (“the UE 602 may send a NAS registration request message (i.e. indication) to the RAN 604 that may include: a UE ID (e.g., SUPI); a registration type (e.g., initial, mobility), and/or a requested NSSAI. The NAS registration request message may be encapsulated in RRC signaling. In some embodiments, the RRC signaling contains a requested NSSAI. It some embodiments, the requested NSSAI is not included or is equal to zero” [0126]) indicating that the UE prefers PLMN selection that prioritizes network slice availability (“In certain embodiments, a PLMN slice selection policy may include the following information: a list of PLMN slice selection policies in priority order. Moreover, each policy may include the following information: a PLMN ID, a configured NSSAI, and/or a mapping of configured NSSAI to HPLMN configured NSSAI. In some embodiments, if the UE 702 sends a registration request and contains a PLMN slice selection policy, the UE 702 checks the PLMN ID and selects a highest priority policy of that PLMN” [0164]-[0165]).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 1, wherein
Velev further discloses the at least one processor is configured to send the information, per network slice, indicating at least one VPLMN that is capable of providing an equivalent network slice to that network slice, to the UE via the second PLMN, and
the information corresponding to the first network slice is considered in the PLMN selection by the UE when the UE prefers the first network slice (“The UDM/UDR 410 may also indicate to the serving AMF 406 (e.g., in the HPLMN) a list of PLMN IDs to which subscribed S-NSSAIs are applicable. This indication may be called, for example, ‘Applicability of Subscribed S-NSSAIs to PLMN(s)’. This indication may also indicate ‘all PLMNs’ for which no other configured NSSAI is provided, in which case the configured NSSAI may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN. This indication may enable the serving AMF 406 to indicate to the UE 402 to which other PLMNs, besides the HPLMN, the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN is applicable.” [0092]).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended)
Velev discloses a User Equipment (UE) (“remote unit 102” in Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one memory (“memory 204” in Fig. 2); and
at least one processor (“processor 202” in Fig. 2) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
receive information (i.e. list of S-NSSAIs/network slices), sent from a Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN) (“if the UE 502 is registered in the HPLMN (e.g., the serving AMF 506 is in the HPLMN)” [0116]), indicating at least one Visited PLMN (VPLMN) (“the configured NSSAI may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN” [0092]) that is capable of providing a first network slice (“The UDM/UDR 410 may also indicate to the serving AMF 406 (e.g., in the HPLMN) a list of PLMN IDs to which subscribed S-NSSAIs are applicable. This indication may be called, for example, ‘Applicability of Subscribed S-NSSAIs to PLMN(s)’. This indication may also indicate ‘all PLMNs’ for which no other configured NSSAI is provided, in which case the configured NSSAI (equivalent to network slice) may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN. This indication may enable the serving AMF 406 to indicate to the UE 402 to which other PLMNs, besides the HPLMN, the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN (equivalent to first network slice) is applicable” [0092]); and
register to a VPLMN (“if the UE 502 is registered in a VPLMN (e.g., the Serving AMF 506 is in VPLMN, called vAMF)” [0116]) for the first network slice among the at least one VPLMN, based on the information (“This indication may also indicate ‘all PLMNs’ for which no other configured NSSAI is provided, in which case the configured NSSAI (equivalent to first network slice) may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN.” [0092]).
Velev does not specifically teach wherein the information enables the UE to prioritize selection of a certain VPLMN among the at least one VPLMN.
In an analogous art, Raghuram discloses wherein the information enables the UE to prioritize selection of a certain VPLMN among the at least one VPLMN (“When camped on a lower priority VPLMN and the only higher priority PLMN is the HPLMN, the present invention provides that the radiotelephone scan 32 only in those RATs and frequencies indicated by the stored inclusive list obtained earlier from the HPLMN… Similarly, when camped on a lower priority VPLMN and the MS has lists of RATs and frequencies of higher priority PLMNs and the HPLMN, the present invention provides that the radiotelephone scan 32 those RATs and frequencies indicated by both stored inclusive lists obtained earlier from the HPLMN and higher priority PLMN.” [0022-0023]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, to include Raghuram’s method for a radiotelephone to scan for a higher priority (including home) public land mobile network (PLMN), in order to efficiently search for prioritized PLMNs and/or VPLMNs (Raghuram [0003]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Raghuram’s method for a radiotelephone to scan for a higher priority (including home) public land mobile network (PLMN) into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended)
The UE according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to send the indication, in a registration procedure of the UE to a second PLMN.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 12 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 5. Therefore apparatus claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended)
The UE according to claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is configured to send an identifier of the first network slice of a first PLMN to the second PLMN in the registration procedure.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 13 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 5. Therefore apparatus claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the UE according to claim 13,
Velev further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to, if the at least one processor send the indication and the identifier of the first network slice (i.e. aforesaid sending the indication and the identifier of the first network slice), receive from a network node of the first PLMN, via the second PLMN, information indicating at least one Visited PLMN (VPLMN) that is capable of providing a network slice equivalent to the first network slice (“The UDM/UDR 410 may also indicate to the serving AMF 406 (e.g., in the HPLMN) a list of PLMN IDs to which subscribed S-NSSAIs are applicable. This indication may be called, for example, ‘Applicability of Subscribed S-NSSAIs to PLMN(s)’. This indication may also indicate ‘all PLMNs’ for which no other configured NSSAI is provided, in which case the configured NSSAI may be a default configured NSSAI for any VPLMN. This indication may enable the serving AMF 406 to indicate to the UE 402 to which other PLMNs, besides the HPLMN, the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN is applicable” [0092]).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the UE according to claim 14,
Velev further discloses wherein the information is sent by the network node when the second PLMN does not provide the equivalent network slice (i.e. aforesaid sending the indication to the network node via the second PLMN and thus receiving the list from the network node and not the second PLMN).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended)
A method performed by a network node associated with a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN), the method comprising:
obtaining information indicating at least one Visited PLMN (VPLMN) that is capable of providing an equivalent network slice to a first network slice of the first PLMN; and
sending the information to a User Equipment (UE) via a second PLMN to cause the UE to prioritize the at least one VPLMN in PLMN selection, wherein
the first PLMN is a Home PLMN (HPLMN) of the UE, and
the second PLMN is a PLMN different from the first PLMN.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 17 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 17 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 21 (New)
A method of a User Equipment (UE) comprising:
receiving information, sent from a Home PLMN (HPLMN), indicating at least one Visited PLMN (VPLMN) that is capable of providing a first network slice, wherein the information enables the UE to prioritize selection of a certain VPLMN among the at least one VPLMN; and
registering toa VPLMN for the first network slice among the at least one VPLMN, based on the information.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 21 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 10. Therefore method claim 21 corresponds to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Claims 4, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev, in view of Raghuram, and further in view of Qiao et al. US Pub 2019/0159015 (hereinafter “Qiao”).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 3,
Velev and Raghuram do not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to send the information to the UE in a case where based on the at least one processor receiving an identifier of at least one other network slice of the first PLMN in addition to the first network slice from the UE via the second PLMN in the registration procedure of the UE to the second PLMN, the subscriber data indicating that the first network slice is prioritized over all of the other at least one network slice, and the second PLMN not providing the equivalent network slice.
In an analogous art, Qiao discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to send the information to the UE in a case where based on the at least one processor receiving an identifier of at least one other network slice of the first PLMN (“When a UE registers with a PLMN, if the UE for this PLMN has a configured NSSAI or an allowed NSSAI, the UE may provide to the network in RRC and NAS layer a Requested NSSAI containing the S-NSSAI(s) corresponding to the slice(s) to which the UE attempts to register, in addition to the temporary user ID if one was assigned to the UE. The Requested NSSAI may be either: the Configured-NSSAI; the Allowed-NSSAI.” [0169]) in addition to the first network slice from the UE via the second PLMN in the registration procedure of the UE to the second PLMN (“After the configured NSSAI for the HPLMN or the configured NSSAI for the serving PLMN have been updated in the UE 502, in a fifth communication 528 between the UE 502, the RAN 504, the serving AMF 506, the NSSF 508, and/or the UDM/UDR 510, the UE 502 may initiate a registration procedure as per TS 23.502 to signal a new requested NSSAI based on the new configured NSSAI for the HPLMN or the configured NSSAI for the serving PLMN parameters” [0123]), the subscriber data indicating that the first network slice is prioritized (“As used herein, “subscription information” may mean subscription data which may contain one or more parameters stored in a UDR. In some embodiments, subscription information may include policy data (i.e. prioritization) and/or structured data for internal exposure and/or external exposure. The subscription information may be downloaded in a UDM, and the UDM may send the subscription information to other NFs such as AMF, SMF, and so forth. Therefore, the term UDM/UDR may be used to refer to the combined functions of the UDR and the UDM” [0063]) over all of the other at least one network slice (e.g. aforesaid priority of first network slice), and the second PLMN not providing the equivalent network slice (e.g. aforesaid equivalent network slice).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, as modified by Raghuram, to include Qiao’s method for transmitting network slice selection assistance information, in order to efficiently provide network slices or functions (Qiao [0169]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Qiao’s method for transmitting network slice selection assistance information into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 22 (New)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the UE according to claim 10,
Velev and Raghuram do not specifically teach wherein the first network slice is equivalent to a second network slice of the HPLMN.
In an analogous art, Qiao discloses wherein the first network slice is equivalent to a second network slice of the HPLMN (“FIG. 25 is a flow diagram of an aspect of an embodiment of the present disclosure. At 2510, a second network slice selection function may receive a first message from a first network slice selection function. The first message may request a selection of an access and mobility management function. At 2520, the second network slice selection function may determine the access and mobility management function. At 2530, the second network slice selection function may send a second message to the first network slice selection function in response to the first message. The second message may comprise an address or identifier of the access and mobility management function.” [0247]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, as modified by Raghuram, to include Qiao’s method for transmitting network slice selection assistance information, in order to efficiently provide network slices or functions (Qiao [0169]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Qiao’s method for transmitting network slice selection assistance information into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 23 (New)
The method of the UE according to claim 21, wherein the first network slice is equivalent to a second network slice of the HPLMN.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 23 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 22. Therefore method claim 23 corresponds to apparatus claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 22 rejection above.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev, in view of Raghuram, and further in view of Ohlsson et al. US Pub 2021/0195509 (hereinafter “Ohlsson”).
Regarding claim 7
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 6,
Velev and Raghuram do not specifically teach wherein the indication is encrypted by the UE using an encryption key of the first PLMN.
In an analogous art, Ohlsson discloses wherein the indication is encrypted by the UE using an encryption key of the first PLMN (“a NAS registration request including a Network Slice Selection Assistance information, NSSAI, encrypted using Public Land Mobile Network, PLMN, public key. The network node selects a network function based on information provided in the RRC connection request. The network nod forwards to the network function the NAS registration request. The network function decrypts the encrypted NSSAI using a PLMN private key.” [0019]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, as modified by Raghuram, to include Ohlsson’s method for handling network slices in a wireless communication network, in order to efficiently provide network slices or functions (Ohlsson [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Ohlsson’s method for handling network slices in a wireless communication network into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the UE according to claim 10,
Velev and Raghuram do not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to encrypt the indication using an encryption key of a first PLMN.
In an analogous art, Ohlsson discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to encrypt the indication using an encryption key of a first PLMN (“a NAS registration request including a Network Slice Selection Assistance information, NSSAI, encrypted using Public Land Mobile Network, PLMN, public key. The network node selects a network function based on information provided in the RRC connection request. The network nod forwards to the network function the NAS registration request. The network function decrypts the encrypted NSSAI using a PLMN private key.” [0019]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, as modified by Raghuram, to include Ohlsson’s method for handling network slices in a wireless communication network, in order to efficiently provide network slices or functions (Ohlsson [Abstract]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Ohlsson’s method for handling network slices in a wireless communication network into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
23. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev, in view of Raghuram, and further in view of Liu et al. US Pub 2020/0177333 (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 9
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the network node according to claim 1,
Velev further discloses wherein the network node includes at least one of a Unified data management (UDM) (“In one embodiment, the indication is received from a unified data management function. In certain embodiments, the unified data management function tracks whether the subscribed network slice selection assistance information has resulted in updating of the configured network slice selection assistance information in the remote unit.” [0174]).
Velev and Raghuram do not specifically teach Steering of Roaming Application Function (SOR-AF) of the first PLMN.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses Steering of Roaming Application Function (SOR-AF) of the first PLMN (“Steering of roaming Application Function (SoR-AF)” [0039]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, as modified by Raghuram, to include Liu’s method for configuring network slices, in order to efficiently provide network slices or functions (Liu [0044]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Liu’s method for configuring network slices into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev, in view of Raghuram, and further in view of Park et al. US Pub 2020/0137675 (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended)
Velev, as modified by Raghuram, previously discloses the UE according to claim 10,
Velev and Raghuram do not specifically teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to manage an Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology data file per network slice of a first PLMN.
In an analogous art, Park discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to manage an Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology data file per network slice of a first PLMN (“The MS may select and attempt registration for a PLMN/access technology combination (when it is available and permitted) in all the operation bands according to the following order……. iii) A PLMN/access technology combination included in the “operator controlled PLMN selector with access technology” data file (depending on priority) of the SIM except for the PLMN/access technology combination previously selected” [0372]-[0375]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information, as modified by Raghuram, to include Park’s method for registering a terminal of an access and mobility management function (AMF), in order to efficiently facilitate registration procedure (Park [0006]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Park’s method for registering a terminal of an access and mobility management function (AMF) into Velev’s method for determining a configured network slice selection assistance information since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
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 CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411