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 on 08/17/2026 contend that amended independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 now require a registration request message comprising “an indicator for indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping,” and that Lee merely discloses transmission of network slice information and network slice group identification information. Applicant further contends that the claimed “indicator” is an actual piece of information indicating support for network slice grouping and is different from Lee's network slice group identification information.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended claim language does not require a separate capability indicator, a dedicated support flag, a Boolean value, a bitmap, or any other data element distinct from the network slice group identification information itself. Rather, the claim requires that the registration request message comprise “an indicator for indicating that the terminal supports network slice grouping.” Nothing in the claim requires the indicator to have any particular format or to be separate from other network slice group information contained in the registration request message.
Lee expressly distinguishes between UEs that support the network-slice-group functionality and UEs that do not support such functionality. In particular, Lee discloses that a UE supporting the mutually exclusive access to network slices function interprets both SG ID information and S-NSSAI information, whereas UEs that do not support the functionality ignore the SG ID information and interpret only the S-NSSAI information (Lee, paragraphs [0100]-[0105]). Thus, Lee itself associates the ability to interpret and use SG ID information with support for the network-slice-group functionality.
Lee further discloses that, during the registration procedure, the UE generates requested NSSAI using S-NSSAIs belonging to the same slice group and includes the corresponding slice group ID in the registration request message (Lee, paragraphs [0107]-[0108]). Accordingly, the slice group ID transmitted by the UE is not merely unrelated identifying information. Rather, it is an actual data element used by a UE operating according to the network-slice-group functionality and included in the registration request message as part of that operation.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended claim language, Lee's slice group ID constitutes an indicator whose inclusion in the registration request message indicates that the UE supports and is operating according to network slice grouping.
Applicant's reliance on the specification does not require a different interpretation. The specification states that whether network slice grouping and network slice priority are supported “may be provided as one indicator.” Such exemplary language does not require that the claimed indicator be a dedicated capability bit or a field separate from network slice group identification information. The amended claims do not positively recite such a narrower structure.
Applicant further argues that a network may be unable to interpret network slice group information unless it separately receives an indicator indicating whether the UE supports network slice grouping. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee expressly discloses that the network uses the slice group ID received from the UE to select an AMF and to determine whether an AMF supports the slice group requested by the UE (Lee, paragraphs [0110]-[0113]). Lee further discloses that the AMF checks whether the S-NSSAIs included in the requested NSSAI and the slice group are correctly mapped (Lee, paragraph [0120]). Thus, Lee expressly teaches that the network recognizes, interprets, and acts upon the slice group information received from the UE.
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.
Accordingly, Applicant's amendment from “an indication indicating” to “an indicator for indicating” does not require a separate capability indicator distinct from Lee's slice group ID, and Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection.
Applicant further contends that, absent a separate indicator indicating support for network slice grouping, the network may be unable to properly interpret network slice group information received from the terminal.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lee expressly teaches that the network interprets and uses the slice group identification information contained in the registration request. In particular., Lee teaches that the BS determines an AMF to which the registration request is to be transmitted based on the requested NSSAI and the slice group ID received from the UE (Lee, paragraph [0110]). Lee further teaches that, when an AMF supporting all requested NSSAIs cannot be found, the BS determines whether an AMF supports the slice group ID requested by the UE and may select such an AMF (Lee, paragraphs [0112]-[0113]).
Lee additionally teaches that the AMF examines whether the S-NSSAIs included in the requested NSSAI and the slice group are correctly mapped. For example, Lee describes an arrangement in which S-NSSAI #1 and S-NSSAI #2 are mapped to SG ID 1, while S-NSSAI #3 is mapped to SG ID 2 (Lee, paragraph [0120]).
Accordingly, Applicant's assertion that Lee's network would be unable to properly interpret the network slice group information is inconsistent with Lee's express disclosure. Lee specifically teaches that network entities recognize, interpret, and act upon the slice group identification information transmitted by the UE. To the extent Applicant's argument is directed specifically to whether Lee alone satisfies the newly amended “indicator for indicating” limitation, that issue is additionally moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Applicant contends that Lee fails to disclose a registration accept message comprising an identifier of a network slice group, a list of one or more network slices associated with the network slice group, and a list of one or more tracking areas associated with the network slice group, wherein the association between the network slice group and the list of network slices is valid in the associated tracking areas.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's argument as applied to the rejection because the rejection does not rely upon Lee alone for all of these limitations.
Lee teaches that the registration accept message may include network slice configuration information comprising updated network slice identification information and network slice group identification information corresponding to the updated network slice identification information (Lee, paragraph [0013]). Thus, Lee teaches conveying, in the registration accept message, a network slice group identification and corresponding network slice information.
The rejection acknowledges that Lee does not expressly disclose the claimed tracking-area information and relies upon Li for the additional teaching concerning the relationship between tracking areas, network slice groups, and the network slices belonging to those groups.
Applicant therefore improperly evaluates Lee in isolation rather than addressing the combined teachings relied upon in the rejection. Obviousness is based on what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and it is not necessary that Lee independently disclose the limitation for which Li is expressly relied upon.
Applicant contends that Li merely teaches that a network slice group or individual network slices are supported by a tracking area, whereas the claims require that the association between a network slice group and its list of constituent network slices itself be valid in one or more associated tracking areas. Applicant further provides an example in which, according to Applicant's interpretation of the claimed invention, a network slice group includes particular slices while the terminal is located in TA1 or TA2, but the terminal allegedly cannot determine that the slices belong to that group when it enters TA3.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Li does not merely disclose independent information identifying network slices supported by a tracking area. Li expressly discloses configuration information comprising a network slice group supported by the tracking area and further explains that, when configuring the network slice group, each network slice may be configured with a group identifier such that network slices corresponding to the same group identifier belong to the same network slice group (Li, Step 202).
Thus, Li teaches, within tracking-area-specific configuration information, both: (1) a network slice group associated with the tracking area, and (2) the network slices belonging to that network slice group.
Li further illustrates this relationship in FIG. 3a, wherein a tracking area supports network slices 1-5, the network slices are divided into two groups, a first network slice group includes network slices 1, 3, and 5, and a second network slice group includes network slices 2 and 4. Accordingly, Li teaches a relationship between a tracking area, a network slice group, and the particular network slices that constitute the group.
Applicant's argument further relies on limitations not recited in the claims. The claims do not require that membership of a network slice group change when a terminal enters a different tracking area, nor do the claims require that a terminal affirmatively determine that the same network slices cease to belong to the network slice group outside the identified tracking areas. Rather, the claims require that the association between the network slice group and the list of network slices be valid in the associated list of tracking areas.
Li's disclosure that tracking-area-specific configuration identifies supported network slice groups and identifies which network slices belong to those groups teaches or at least suggests the claimed applicability of the group-to-slice association within the corresponding tracking area.
Therefore, Applicant's distinction between a network slice group being supported in a tracking area and the group-to-slice association being valid in that tracking area is not persuasive under the scope of the claim language as presently recited.
Applicant contends that Li's Step 202 merely teaches an AMF receiving configuration information from an OAM device and therefore does not teach an AMF transmitting the claimed tracking-area and network-slice-group information to a terminal in a registration accept message.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because this argument attacks Li individually rather than the combination actually relied upon in the rejection.
The rejection does not rely on Li for teaching the registration accept message itself. Lee expressly teaches the AMF-to-terminal registration procedure and teaches that the registration accept message includes network slice configuration information containing updated network slice identification information and corresponding network slice group identification information (Lee, paragraph [0013]; see also paragraphs [0118] and [0121]).
Li is relied upon for the additional teaching that applicability of network slice groups and their constituent network slices may be associated with tracking-area information. In particular, Li teaches tracking-area-specific configuration information identifying a network slice group supported by the tracking area and identifying which network slices belong to that group.
The rejection modifies Lee's registration accept message, which already communicates network slice group and corresponding network slice configuration information to the UE, to further include the tracking-area applicability information taught by Li. Such a modification would have enabled the UE receiving Lee's network slice group configuration to determine the tracking areas in which the network slice group and corresponding member slices are applicable, thereby facilitating management and selection of network slices according to the UE's service area.
Accordingly, Li need not independently disclose an AMF transmitting the complete claimed registration accept message to the UE. Lee supplies the registration accept procedure and the group/slice configuration information, while Li supplies the additional tracking-area-based applicability teaching relied upon in the combination.
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; Par. 100-101; A UE supporting mutually exclusive access to network slices function interprets both SG ID information and S-NSSAI information, whereas UEs that do not support the function ignore the SG ID information and interpret only the S-NSSAI information; UEs that support the mutually exclusive access to network slices function are distinguished from UEs that do not support the function; Paras. 0107-0108; the UE generates a requested NSSAI using S-NSSAIs belonging to the same slice group and includes the corresponding slice group ID in the registration request message; Thus, the SG ID is an actual data element included in the registration request message whose use indicates that the UE supports and operates according to network slice grouping);
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; When configuring the network slice group, each network slice may be configured with an identifier of the group, and network slices corresponding to the same group identifier belong to the same network slice group; 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 in view of 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 in view of 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 in view of 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
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