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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei (Huawei 3GPP TSG-RAN WG23#105, R2-1901444) in view of Lee (US 20110039558) further in view of Martinez (US 20180270738)
Regarding claim 1, Huawei teaches a method of selecting a cell in a wireless communications network by a communications device, the method comprising
receiving information associated with a candidate cell (broadcast the above NPN identification), the information comprising a logical portion indication indicating one or more logical portion identities corresponding to respective logical portions of the wireless communications network which can be accessed in the candidate cell, one or more of the logical portion identities being a slice identifier corresponding to a network slice (Section 2; page 2, “For solution #2 [2] [4], it supports non-stand-alone non-pubilc network (NSA NPN). The NSA NPN networks are deployed as part of public networks. Therefore, the NSA NPN are NPNs made available via public network operators, e.g., by allocating one (or more) Network Slice to the NPN”),
determining that the candidate cell is a non-public cell (NPN identification) to which access is restricted (Section 2; page 1, “To discover the NPN network, RAN2 should introduce NPN identification related information. The NPN identification related information may include NPN network identifier (NID) and special PLMN ID (e.g. based on mobile country code (MCC) 999). In addition, it is possible to include human-readable network name ID per NID and access indication to pre- vent UEs not supporting SNPNs from accessing the cell. The idea is to broadcast the above NPN identification related information.”),
determining that the communications device is not permitted to access any of the logical portions identified in the logical portion indication (Section 2; page 1, As the above analysis, only UEs with available subscriber IDs and credentials can camp and access the NPN cell), and
in response to determining that the communications device is not permitted to access any of the logical portions identified in the logical portion indication, selecting as a new serving cell a cell different from the candidate cell (Section 2; page 1, Cell reselection, As the above analysis, only UEs with available subscriber IDs and credentials can camp and access the NPN cell; Section 2; page 2, For solution #2 [2] [4], it supports non-stand-alone non-pubilc network (NSA NPN). The NSA NPN networks are deployed as part of public networks. Therefore, the NSA NPN are NPNs made available via public network operators, e.g., by allocating one (or more) Network Slice to the NPN. Based on the existing Rel-15 mechanism, the network slicing kind of NPN would not allow the UE to avoid trying to access the network in areas where the UE is not allowed to use the Network Slices. It is reasonable to consider Closed Access Group (CAG) like solution as a supplementary of network slicing and to apply additional access control”),
Huawei teaches the received information but does not explicitly state that the received information from the broadcast is system information. In an analogous art, Lee teaches that the received information is system information ([0041] “broadcast channel (BCH) for transmitting system information” [0051] “The system information includes essential information that must be known to a UE to access a BS. Thus, the UE has to receive all system information before accessing the BS. Further, the UE always has to have the latest system information. Since the system information is information that must be known to all UEs in one cell, the BS periodically transmits the system information”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include Huawei’s teaching of broadcast information to contain the system information as taught by Lee in order to comply with industry standard of broadcasting system information to inform the UE of the latest system information.
Huawei and Lee do not explicitly teach “the composite system information and portion of the composite system information being included in a master information block (MIB) and an other portion of the composite system information being including in a system information block (SIB) separated from the MIB”.
However, this limitation holds little patentable weight because the details of
do not interact or have any effect on any step of the method and therefore doesn’t carry patentable weight. Nonetheless, for compact prosecution purpose, the limitation is addressed below.
Martinez teaches composite system information (Fig. 2, system information 200 made up of a composite of MIB and SIBs), and portion of the composite system information being included in a master information block (MIB) and an other portion of the composite system information being including in a system information block (SIB) separated from the MIB (0025] “example of FIG. 2, system information 200 comprises a total of twenty-one SI blocks. As such, system information 200 may be representative of an example in which M is equal to 21 in operating environment 100 of FIG. 1. Included among the SI blocks comprised in according to this example are an MIB and twenty different types of SIBs, which include a type 1 SIB (SIB1), a type 2 SIB (SIB2), a type 3 SIB (SIB3), and so forth. It is to be appreciated that embodiments are not limited to this particular example.”) Thus, Fig. 2 shows System Information 200 is comprised of or a composite of SIBs and separate MIB. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Huawei’s and Lee’s teaching of the system information to create a composite/combined system information of both MIB and SIB in order to create the flexibility to convey additional useful information.
Regarding claim 3, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the logical portion identities is a slice identifier (Huawei, Section 2; page 2, For solution #2 [2] [4], it supports non-stand-alone non-pubilc network (NSA NPN). The NSA NPN networks are deployed as part of public networks. Therefore, the NSA NPN are NPNs made available via public network operators, e.g., by allocating one (or more) Network Slice to the NPN. Based on the existing Rel-15 mechanism, the network slicing kind of NPN would not allow the UE to avoid trying to access the network in areas where the UE is not allowed to use the Network Slices. It is reasonable to consider Closed Access Group (CAG) like solution as a supplementary of network slicing and to apply additional access control”),
Regarding claim 4, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 1, wherein the candidate cell includes a first carrier frequency, the composite system information comprises an intra-frequency reselection indicator indicating that, in the event that the communications device candidate cell is not permitted to access the candidate cell, the communications device is permitted to select as a new serving cell another cell operating at the first carrier frequency, and the selected different cell includes the first carrier frequency (Huawei, Section 2, page 1, "It is expected that RAN can send some assistance information for UE to identify the related NPN network. For example, the assistance information can be NPN identification related carrier frequencies").
Regarding claim 5, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 1, the method comprising receiving, in a serving cell from a serving infrastructure equipment of the wireless communications network, cell reselection information comprising an indication of one or more non-public network cells which the communications device is not permitted to access (Huawei, Section 2, the passage "only UEs with available subscriber IDs and credentials can camp and access the NPN cell").
Regarding claim 6, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 5, wherein the cell reselection information is formed by the serving infrastructure equipment in accordance with an enhanced mobility restriction list comprising an indication of one or more logical portions of the wireless communications network which the communications device is permitted to access received by the serving infrastructure equipment (Huawei, Section 2, page 2, “Proposal 1, showing the slice concept where some slices (comprehending a list of different network devices) are not scheduled to be used by the UE via the CAG (CAG are related to the subscription profile of the communication device)”).
Regarding claim 7, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 5, wherein the receiving the cell reselection information occurs while the communications device is in a connected mode in which data can be transmitted to or by the communications device in the serving cell (Huawei, Section 2, “Proposal 2: For standalone NPN, the following RAN functionalities would be impacted: system information, access control, NPN cell (re-)selection idle/connected mobility between SA NPN and public networks”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei (Huawei 3GPP TSG-RAN WG23#105, R2-1901444) in view of Lee (US 20110039558) further in view of Martinez further in view of Catt (CATT: “Traffic Steering of solutions without ANDSF” 3GPP Draft; R2-133892)
Regarding claim 2, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 1, except wherein one or more of the logical portion identities is an access point name. In an analogous art, Catt teaches one or more of the logical portion identities is an access point name (para 2.2; the inclusion of APN in the system information). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include Huawei’s teaching of broadcast information to contain the APN as taught by Catt in order to allow the system the flexibility of customizing the restriction using the access point name.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei (Huawei 3GPP TSG-RAN WG23#105, R2-1901444) in view of Lee (US 20110039558) further in view of Martinez further in view of 3GPP (3GPP TR 23.734)
Regarding claim 8, Huawei, Lee and Martinez teach a method according to claim 1, except wherein the selecting as the new serving cell the cell different from the candidate cell is performed while the communications device is in an inactive mode in which a radio connection with the serving cell is suspended. In an analogous art, 3GPP teaches the selecting as the new serving cell the cell different from the candidate cell is performed while the communications device is in an inactive mode in which a radio connection with the serving cell is suspended (para. 6.5.1, the passage “In order to support UAC for NPN, Rel-15 approach can be reused for RRC Idle and RRC inactive UEs”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include Huawei’s teaching of broadcast information to include 3GPP’s teaching of selecting as the new serving cell the cell different from the candidate cell is performed while the communications device is in an inactive mode in order to comply with the 3GPP standard.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that
“The Office Action asserts that Huawei describes one or more logical portion indicators that indicate a network slice (Office Action, pp. 5-6). However, Huawei describes the network slices as being problematic because they enable a UE to access network areas that the UE is not allowed to access ostensibly teaches away from providing the UE with network slice identifiers because doing so leads to the problem defined in Huawei, namely allowing, the UE to access restricted parts of the network (MPEP 2145: "It is improper to combine references where the references teach away from their combination. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983)"). Thus, Huawei not only fails to disclose or suggest the above-highlighted feature, Huawei teaches away from it.”
Following is the Disclosure by Huawei
“For solution #2 [2] [4], it supports non-stand-alone non-public network (NSA NPN). The NSA NPN networks are deployed as part of public networks. Therefore, the NSA NPN are NPNs made available via public network operators, e.g., by allocating one (or more) Network Slice to the NPN. Based on the existing Rel-15 mechanism, the network slicing kind of NPN would not allow the UE to avoid trying to access the network in areas where the UE is not allowed to use the Network Slices. It is reasonable to consider Closed Access Group (CAG) like solution as a supplementary of network slicing and to apply additional access control.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
First of all, Huawei is a primary reference and thus it simply teaches the features and is not being combined with another reference and thus cannot be subjected to “teach away” concept. The concept of “Teach away” may be applicable when the concept is being taught by a secondary reference.
Second, the examiner submits that Huawei does not teach away from providing the UE with network slice identifiers because this concept is labeled as Solution #2 which means it is one of the many possible solutions to implement rather than a problem or a teach away concept. Huawei discloses “avoid trying to access the network in areas where the UE is not allowed”; Huawei does not teach “allowing, the UE to access restricted parts of the network”. Furthermore, the solution also included consideration of Closed Access Group (CAG) like solution as a supplementary of network slicing and to apply additional access control. Therefore, even if the solution maybe not be the most ideal, it also has additional measures to supplement or enhance the solution.
Furthermore, the claim merely recites receiving one or more logical more logical portion indicators that indicate a network slice. There is no subsequent step that specifically utilize the network slice. Thus, the network slice is merely a “non-functional descriptive material” limitation which holds very little weight.
Lastly, there is also NO positively recited active step that explicitly defines how the network slices are related to the restrictions either.
Citation of Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Sharma (US 20220256416) teaches when NPN is hosted by a public network (NSNPN), the NPN could be implemented by realizing a dedicated network slice or APN (Access Point Name) for the NPN. NSNPN deployment will require a cell to broadcast an NPN identifier (ID) and a Closed Access Group (CAG) identifier (ID). For the example of an SNPN, a cell may broadcast a Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) identifier (ID) and an NPN ID. The PLMN ID and NPN ID may not be unique in the network ([0053]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUNG L LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 9-5pm.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/DUNG L LAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/MATTHEW D. ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights