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 in 03/03/2026 regarding the limitation of amended claims 1 and 9 – namely “receiving, from a terminal, a registration request message comprising information indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping” – and the similar limitations of claims 5 and 13 – namely, “transmitting, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), a registration request message comprising information indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping – have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Lee fails to teach "an indication indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping" because Lee merely discloses transmission of network slice information and network slice group identification information, rather than a separate indication that the terminal supports network slice grouping. Applicant further argues that transmission of network slice group information is different from transmitting an indication that the terminal supports network slice grouping.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language merely requires that the registration request message comprise "an indication indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping." The claim does not require any particular format for the indication, nor does it require a dedicated capability field, support flag, bitmap, or other expressly identified data element separate from the network slice group information itself. Had Applicant intended to require such a separate capability indicator, Applicant could have positively recited such a limitation in the claims.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a terminal transmitting network slice group identification information is inherently indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping. A terminal that does not support network slice grouping would have no reason or ability to generate and transmit network slice group identification information as part of the registration procedure. Accordingly, the transmission of network slice group identification information itself constitutes information indicating support for network slice grouping.
Furthermore, the claims do not recite that the network must successfully interpret, process, validate, or otherwise utilize the indication. Applicant's argument that the network may be unable to properly interpret network slice group information without first receiving a separate support indication imports limitations from the specification that are not recited in the claims. The claims merely require that the registration request message comprise an indication indicating support for network slice grouping, and do not require any particular network behavior in response to such indication.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Lee's disclosure of transmitting network slice group identification information in the registration request message teaches or at least suggests a registration request message comprising an indication indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping.
Applicant contends that “Lee fails to teach or suggest that the registration accept message includes at least one identifier of at least one network slice group, a list of one or more network slices associated with each of the at least one network slice group, and a list of one or more tracking areas (TAs) associated with the each of the at least one network slice group, wherein an association of a network slice group with a list of one or more network slices is valid in a list of one or more TAs associated with the network slice group.”
The rejection does not rely on Lee alone for these teachings. Rather, the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Lee and Jin. Applicant's argument addresses Lee individually and does not address the teachings relied upon from Jin or the rationale for combining the references. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive of error in the rejection.
Regarding Jin, applicant contends “in accordance with amended independent Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13, the mapping between slice group and slices is valid in the indicated TA, while in the case of Jin, it means that slices are supported in the designated TA. Therefore, the TA transmitted in Jin has a different associated meaning from the TA transmitted in amended independent Claims 1, 5, 9, and 13” and “Jin does not teach of suggest the terminal transmits information indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping in the registration request.”
In view of the amendments, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,5,9,13 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.
Applicant further contends that Lee in view of Jin does not disclose “transmitting, to the terminal, a registration accept message comprising at least one identifier of at least one network slice group, a list of one or more network slices associated with each of the at least one network slice group, and a list of one or more tracking areas (TAs) associated with the each of the at least one network slice group, wherein an association of a network slice group with a list of one or more network slices is valid in a list of one or more TAs associated with the network slice group” as recited in the amended independent claims 1,5,9,13.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1,5,9,13 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2020/0053643, hereinafter Lee), in view of Li (CN 113498121).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) in a communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a terminal, a registration request message comprising an indication indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping (Abstract: Line 3-11; AMF receives a registration request message from UE including network slice information and network slice group identification information. This information indicates that the UE supports slice grouping; Fig. 6; UE 610 transmits a registration request message 640 including slice group ID);
and transmitting, to the terminal, a registration accept message comprising at least one identifier of at least one network slice group and list of one or more network slices associated with each of the at least one network slice group (Par. 0013; The registration accept message includes network slice identification information and network slice group identification information corresponding to the network slice identification information; Fig. 6; AMF 620 transmits registration accept message 665 and 670 to the UE 610 which includes allowed NSSAI).
Lee discloses a registration accept message but fails to disclose the registration accept message comprising a list of one or more tracking areas (TAs) associated with the each of the at least one network slice group, wherein an association of a network slice group with a list of one or more network slices is valid in a list of one more TAs associated with the network slice group.
Li, however, discloses one or more tracking areas (TAs) associated with the each of the at least one network slice group, wherein an association of a network slice group with a list of one or more network slices is valid in a list of one more TAs associated with the network slice group (Page 13: Lines 35-39; Configuration information comprises network slice group supported by the tracking area. The network slices are associated with groups. Slice groups are identified by numbers and have associated slices; Page 14: Lines 5-7; A tracking area supports network slices 1-5. The network slices belong to slice groups).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee's registration accept message to further include tracking-area information associated with network slice groups as taught by Li. Li teaches that a tracking area may support a network slice group and that network slices are organized into network slice groups, thereby establishing an association between a network slice group and its constituent network slices within the tracking area. Such a modification would have enabled the UE to determine the applicability of network slice groups based on tracking area information, improving management and selection of network slices across different service areas while utilizing known network slice grouping techniques and tracking-area-based slice support information. The combination would merely apply Li's known association of tracking areas, network slice groups, and member network slices to the registration procedures of Lee, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 5. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 5 are addressed.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses an access and mobility management function (AMF) in a communication system, the AMF comprising:
a transceiver;
and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to (Par. 131 and Fig. 10; A network entity (i.e. AMF) may include a processor 1010 that controls overall operation of the network entity and a transceiver 1020).
The remaining limitations are addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the remaining limitations of claim 9 are addressed.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses a terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver;
and a controller coupled with the transceiver and configured to (Par. 126 and Fig. 9; A UE may include a processor 910 that controls overall operation of the UE and a transceiver 920).
The remaining limitations are addressed in the rejection of claim 1. Therefore, the remaining limitations of claim 13 are addressed.
Claims 3, 7, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2020/0053643, hereinafter Lee), in view of Li (CN 113498121) in further view of Son et al. (US 20210385777, hereinafter Son).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Lee and Li disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach receiving, from a network slice selection function (NSSF), the at least one identifier of the at least one network slice group and the at least one list of the one or more network slices associated with each of the at least one network slice group.
Son, however, discloses receiving, from a network slice selection function (NSSF), the at least one identifier of the at least one network slice group and the at least one list of the one or more network slices associated with each of the at least one network slice group (Par. 68; The AMF may acquire, using the NSSF, slice group ID information and mapping-related information between slice group IDs and network slices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to have incorporated the teaching of Son regarding acquisition of slice group identifiers and mapping-related information between slice group IDs and network slices into the method of Lee in view of Li. Doing so would allow the AMF to obtain accurate and up-to-date slice group information directly from the NSSF. This would ensure consistency across the network, reduce redundancy in the AMF, and enable efficient slice management for terminals.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 7. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 7 are addressed.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 9, the rejection of claim 3 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 11. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 11 are addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 3 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 15 are addressed.
Claims 4, 8, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US Pub. 2020/0053643, hereinafter Lee), in view of Li (CN 113498121) in further view of Suh Kyungjoo (KR 20210146901, hereinafter Kyungjoo).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Lee and Li disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the registration accept message further comprises priority information for the at least one network slice group.
Kyungjoo, however, discloses wherein the registration accept message further comprises priority information for the at least one network slice group (Page 5: Par. 1: Lines 2-5; The registration accept message includes information such as priority of the network slice group (p-list)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to have incorporated the priority information for the at least one network slice group of Kyungjoo into the registration accept message of Lee in view of Li. This would ensure efficient slice selection and service differentiation. Priority information is a known parameter used by the AMF to optimize network slice allocation.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 5, Lee and Li disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the registration accept message further comprises priority information for the at least one network slice group, and wherein the priority information is used for a cell reselection.
Kyungjoo, however, discloses wherein the registration accept message further comprises priority information for the at least one network slice group, and wherein the priority information is used for a cell reselection (Page 5: Par. 1: Lines 2-5; The registration accept message includes information such as priority of the network slice group (p-list); Abstract: Lines 2-5; Cell reselection is based on information about the network slice such as slice group priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant's claimed invention to have incorporated using the slice group priority information sent in the registration accept message for cell reselection of Kyungjoo into the registration accept message of Lee in view of Li. This would allow to support seamless mobility and to optimize service continuity within the network. The priority information would allow the UE to make informed decisions when performing cell reselection.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 9, the rejection of claim 4 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 12 are addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 addresses all the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, all the limitations of claim 16 are addressed.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights