DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments and Remarks filed 10/29/2025 was received.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant asserted that “the claim amendments are supported at least by the original claims and, for example, paragraphs [0066], [0070], and [0074] of the published application.” However, the Examiner cannot find written description support for the following amendments.
“Technical incompatibility” lacks written description support
Claim 1 as amended recites the term “technical incompatibility.” While the specification as originally filed describes an “incompatibility problem” (p.11), “slice incompatible information” (p. 2, 4, and throughout), and “incompatible S-NSSAIs” (p. 16, 18, 29, etc.). However, the specification does not use the phrase “technical incompatibility” nor does it describe this term. Paragraph [0070] of the published application seems to be the most relevant of the portions indicated by Applicant as providing support. However, this portion indicates that there is no incompatibility with the service area but an incompatibility with the other slice information (A). There is no discussion of “technical” incompatibility. Even if slice/service area incompatibility were deemed a “technical incompatibility,” Applicant claims subject matter beyond what was described. For these reasons, claim 1 lacks written descriptions support. Independent claims 7 and 13 recite similar limitations and lack written description support for similar reasons. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 lack written description support by virtue of their dependency.
“Deliberately configured” lacks written description support
Claim 1 as amended recites “the radio access control message is deliberately configured such that it does not comprise at least one piece of information.” First, the Examiner recognizes that all computer devices are in some sense “deliberately configured” as a result of their programming logic. Nevertheless, this sense was already captured by the claims before amendment. It is unclear what limitation Applicant intended to achieve by adding the term “deliberately configured.” Second, the Examiner asserts that this limitation lacks written description support because the Application does not use the term “deliberate” nor does it describe how the configuration is “deliberate.” The description does not clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize what is claimed. Independent claims 7 and 13 recite similar limitations and lack written description support for similar reasons. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 lack written description support by virtue of their dependency.
“Independent selection” lacks written description support
Claim 1 as amended recites “enabling the radio access node to make an independent selection of the destination access management node.” This amendment lacks written description support because the Specification does not use the term “independent” nor does it describe selection that is “independent” in some specific way that would clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize what is claimed. Independent claims 7 and 13 recite similar limitations and lack written description support for similar reasons. Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 lack written description support by virtue of their dependency.
PRIOR ART
The following references are prior art:
1. (3/14/2024 IDS) US 2019/0029065 A1 (“Park”) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) since it was published on Jan. 24, 2019 before Aug. 4, 2020 the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Park was also cited as D1 against the corresponding European application and an application within Park’s family was cited as D1 against the corresponding international application.
2. (6/27/2025 PTO-892) Appl. No.: 17/713,103 (“Kim”) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) since it published as US 2022/0232507 A1, names another inventor Sunhee Kim, and was effectively filed May 25, 2020 before Aug. 4, 2020 the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 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:
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
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, 2, 6, 7, 11-14, 19 AND 20
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park.
Claim 1
With respect to claim 1, Park taught:
A wireless communication method (Park taught [Abstract] a method for a user equipment to update a policy in a wireless communication system may include transmitting a first registration request message to an access and mobility management function (AMF). [0631] FIG. 19 is a flowchart illustrating a registration procedure/method of a UE according to the proposal 2 of the present invention.)
comprising: receiving, by a communication device, rejection information corresponding to at least one piece of network slice information, wherein the rejection information comprises a rejection cause corresponding to slice incompatible information (Park taught [0538] the network may not include a non-allowed S-NSSAI value (i.e., a reject S-NSSAI value) (e.g., #2) in the allowed NSSAI (e.g., #1, #3). In this case, the network needs to notify whether a reject cause for the rejected S-NSSAI is temporary (e.g., if it can be allowed again when a specific time/place condition is satisfied) or permanent (e.g., if it cannot be allowed although a specific time/place condition is satisfied). [0605] if the AMF1 can support #1, #2 and #4 S-NSSAIs and the AMF2 can support #2, #3 and #5 S-NSSAIs, when a UE requests the #1, #2 and #3 S-NSSAIs as requested NSSAIs, a network may have to reject the #3 S-NSSAI (i.e., AMF1 selection) or the #1 S-NSSAI (i.e., AMF2 selection) depending on AMF selection. That is, the network may perform rejection for a specific S-NSSAI depending on a supportable S-NSSAI of a selected serving AMF. Accordingly, in this case, if the UE has moved to a different registration area or a different AMF has been selected, the UE needs to be able to request a rejected S-NSSAI again. [0606] there may be a case where the AMF may serve all of S-NSSAIs requested by a UE, but specific S-NSSSAIs are configured by a network operator so that the specific S-NSSSAIs cannot be served/used at the same time. For example, a specific AMF can support both #1 and #2 slices/S-NSSAIs, but the two slices/S-NSSAIs may be configured so that only one of them can be used. [0607] If the network determines such co-existence information and determines an S-NSSAI to be allowed (at a current occasion) and an S-NSSAI to be not allowed, it may provide the UE with Reject-related information with respect to the S-NSSAI to be not allowed. That is, the network may provide the UE with information (e.g., not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs) indicating that a Reject Cause for (currently) rejected S-NSSAIs is not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs. In this case, the network may notify the UE of a not-co-existable target S-NSSAI. Furthermore, the network may indicate information about a not-co-existable granularity/unit additionally/selectively (e.g., in the AMF unit, registration area unit and/or service providing unit (i.e., the information indicates that an S-NSSAI is allowed, but the simultaneous use of a target S-NSSAI is impossible in the corresponding unit) [0633] the UE may receive a Registration Accept message from the AMF as a response to the registration request message (S1920). In this case, if at least one of S-NSSAIs included in the requested NSSAI has been rejected by the AMF, the Registration Accept message may include a Reject Cause for the rejected S-NSSAI along with the rejected S-NSSAI. In this case, the Reject Cause may be configured to indicate that the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in the PLMN and/or a current registration area. The Examiner finds that Park taught receiving, by a communication device (i.e., the UE), rejection information (i.e., Reject-related information) corresponding to at least one piece of network slice information (i.e., Reject-related information with respect to the S-NSSAI to be not allowed), wherein the rejection information comprises a rejection cause corresponding to slice incompatible information (i.e., the Reject Cause in Park indicating that the rejected S-NSSAI is not co-existable reads on the claimed “slice incompatible information” because the rejected S-NSSAI in Park is not capable of being used in combination/simultaneously (which is the plain meaning of incompatible) with another S-NSSAI);
and transmitting, by the communication device, a registration request comprising a requested network slice information, wherein the requested network slice information comprises the at least one piece of network slice information corresponding to the received rejection information (Park taught [0634] if the S-NSSAI has been rejected for a cause in which the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in a current registration area, the UE may not attempt a use request for the corresponding rejected S-NSSAI in the current registration area until the UE deviates from the registration area. [0600] if the rejection of an S-NSSAI is given in a registration Area Unit and the UE has Moved to Another Registration Area (i.e., if the UE has deviated from a current registration area in which the S-NSSAI has been rejected), the UE may reattempt a request to use the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area. Furthermore, if the S-NSSAI rejected in the current PLMN is deleted from the list (i.e., rejected/forbidden NSSAI) for any reason, the UE may request the corresponding S-NSSAI again although it does not deviate from the current registration area. The Examiner finds that Park taught transmitting, by the communication device (i.e., the UE), a registration request comprising a requested network slice information (i.e., the reattempted request to use the S-NSSAI), wherein the requested network slice information comprises the at least one piece of network slice information corresponding to the received rejection information (i.e., the reattempted request to use the S-NSSAI that was previously rejected));
wherein the registration request is transmitted in response to the rejection cause (Park taught [0634] if the S-NSSAI has been rejected for a cause in which the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in a current registration area, the UE may not attempt a use request for the corresponding rejected S-NSSAI in the current registration area until the UE deviates from the registration area. [0600] if the rejection of an S-NSSAI is given in a registration Area Unit and the UE has Moved to Another Registration Area (i.e., if the UE has deviated from a current registration area in which the S-NSSAI has been rejected), the UE may reattempt a request to use the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area. The Examiner finds that Park taught wherein the registration request (i.e., the reattempt to request) is transmitted in response to the rejection cause (i.e., in response to first being rejected S-NSSAI (the rejection cause) and then moving to another registration area, which is in response to the rejection cause/rejection S-NSSAI since that happens first)),
and wherein the rejection cause comprises an indication that the at least one piece of network slice information is supported within a current wireless service area and not compatible with an allowed network slice information, thereby indicating a technical incompatibility: (Park taught [0538] the network may not include a non-allowed S-NSSAI value (i.e., a reject S-NSSAI value) (e.g., #2) in the allowed NSSAI (e.g., #1, #3). In this case, the network needs to notify whether a reject cause for the rejected S-NSSAI is temporary (e.g., if it can be allowed again when a specific time/place condition is satisfied) or permanent (e.g., if it cannot be allowed although a specific time/place condition is satisfied). [0605] if the AMF1 can support #1, #2 and #4 S-NSSAIs and the AMF2 can support #2, #3 and #5 S-NSSAIs, when a UE requests the #1, #2 and #3 S-NSSAIs as requested NSSAIs, a network may have to reject the #3 S-NSSAI (i.e., AMF1 selection) or the #1 S-NSSAI (i.e., AMF2 selection) depending on AMF selection. That is, the network may perform rejection for a specific S-NSSAI depending on a supportable S-NSSAI of a selected serving AMF. Accordingly, in this case, if the UE has moved to a different registration area or a different AMF has been selected, the UE needs to be able to request a rejected S-NSSAI again. [0606] there may be a case where the AMF may serve all of S-NSSAIs requested by a UE, but specific S-NSSSAIs are configured by a network operator so that the specific S-NSSSAIs cannot be served/used at the same time. For example, a specific AMF can support both #1 and #2 slices/S-NSSAIs, but the two slices/S-NSSAIs may be configured so that only one of them can be used. [0607] If the network determines such co-existence information and determines an S-NSSAI to be allowed (at a current occasion) and an S-NSSAI to be not allowed, it may provide the UE with Reject-related information with respect to the S-NSSAI to be not allowed. That is, the network may provide the UE with information (e.g., not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs) indicating that a Reject Cause for (currently) rejected S-NSSAIs is not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs. In this case, the network may notify the UE of a not-co-existable target S-NSSAI. Furthermore, the network may indicate information about a not-co-existable granularity/unit additionally/selectively (e.g., in the AMF unit, registration area unit and/or service providing unit (i.e., the information indicates that an S-NSSAI is allowed, but the simultaneous use of a target S-NSSAI is impossible in the corresponding unit). The Examiner finds that Park taught wherein the rejection cause (i.e., the reject cause for the rejected S-NSSAI) comprises an indication that the at least one piece of network slice information is supported within a current wireless service area (i.e., is supported by the AMF, depending on AMF selection, as in the example cited above regarding AMF1 support of #1, #2 and #4 S-NSSAIs and AMF2 support of #2, #3 and #5 S-NSSAIs) and not compatible with an allowed network slice information, thereby indicating a technical incompatibility (i.e., a specific AMF can support both #1 and #2 slices/S-NSSAIs, but the two slices/S-NSSAIs may be configured so that only one of them can be used… a Reject Cause for (currently) rejected S-NSSAIs is not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs, which is a technical incompatibility));
and setting, by the communication device, the at least one piece of requested network slice information in a radio access control message, to allow a radio access node to select a destination access management node supporting the at least one piece of requested network slice information (Park taught [0461] When a UE registers a PLMN, if the PLMN is stored in the UE, the UE needs to provide NSSAIs configured in the networks of the RRC and NAS layers, an allowed NSSAI or a subset thereof. [0607] If the network determines such co-existence information and determines an S-NSSAI to be allowed (at a current occasion) and an S-NSSAI to be not allowed, it may provide the UE with Reject-related information with respect to the S-NSSAI to be not allowed. That is, the network may provide the UE with information (e.g., not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs) indicating that a Reject Cause for (currently) rejected S-NSSAIs is not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs. In this case, the network may notify the UE of a not-co-existable target S-NSSAI. Furthermore, the network may indicate information about a not-co-existable granularity/ unit additionally/selectively (e.g., in the AMF unit, registration area unit and/or service providing unit (i.e., the information indicates that an S-NSSAI is allowed, but the simultaneous use of a target S-NSSAI is impossible in the corresponding unit)). [0617] 4b. If an S-NSSAI has not been permanently rejected, but has been temporarily rejected due to each PLMN, each area, a specific time ( e.g., backoff time) and/or impossible co-existence with other S-NSSAIs, the UE may update a "non-allowed/NSSAI restricted/rejected/forbidden" NSSAI list for managing them. [0618] 5. A restriction condition (or the current situation/ condition of the UE) of the restriction list updated in 4b step may be changed, and thus restriction may be alleviated (e.g., the UE moves to another registration area or a backoff timer expires) [0619] 6a/6b. The UE may include the previously rejected S-NSSAI in a registration request and start a registration procedure again. If rejection based on an area has been received, the UE may transmit a request to a new AMF changed due to the AMF change event. The Examiner finds that Park taught setting, by the communication device (i.e., the UE), the at least one piece of requested network slice information (i.e., the UE sets a request for the previously rejected NSSAI to the new AMF) in a radio access control message (i.e., the request in Park is a radio access control message since it is requesting registration/access with the new AMF, which handles 5G core control plane functions as discussed in [0202]-[0204]), to allow a radio access node to select a destination access management node supporting the at least one piece of requested network slice information (i.e., the request is sent to the new/destination AMF when the restriction is alleviated)).
Park did not explicitly disclose but did teach:
wherein the radio access control message is deliberately configured such that it does not comprise at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node (Park taught [0469] When registration is successfully performed, a UE is provided with a globally unique temporary UE identity (GUTI) by a serving AMF. The UE includes a local unique temporary ID in RRC connection establishment during subsequent initial access so that an RAN whose Temp ID is valid can route an NAS message to a suitable AMF. [0470] When an NSSAI and a full local unique temporary ID are received in RRC, if an RAN can reach the AMF corresponding to a locally unique temporary ID, the RAN forwards a request to the corresponding AMF. If not, the RAN selects a suitable AMF based on an NSSAI provided by a UE and transmits the request to the selected AMF. If the RAN cannot select the AMF based on a provided NSSAI, the request is transmitted to a default AMF. The Examiner finds that Park taught at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node (i.e., the globally unique temporary UE identity (GUTI) is relevant to the destination access management node because it is used to determining the corresponding suitable AMF)).
Park taught the limitations of claim 1 above, including the “the radio access control message” and “at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node.” However, Park did not explicitly disclose that “the radio access control message is deliberately configured such that it does not comprise at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node.”
Although Park did not explicitly teach, Park suggested:
the radio access control message is deliberately configured such that it does not comprise at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node, thereby enabling the radio access node to make an independent selection of the destination access management node (Park taught [0469] When registration is successfully performed, a UE is provided with a globally unique temporary UE identity (GUTI) by a serving AMF. The UE includes a local unique temporary ID in RRC connection establishment during subsequent initial access so that an RAN whose Temp ID is valid can route an NAS message to a suitable AMF. [0470] When an NSSAI and a full local unique temporary ID are received in RRC, if an RAN can reach the AMF corresponding to a locally unique temporary ID, the RAN forwards a request to the corresponding AMF. If not, the RAN selects a suitable AMF based on an NSSAI provided by a UE and transmits the request to the selected AMF. If the RAN cannot select the AMF based on a provided NSSAI, the request is transmitted to a default AMF. The Examiner finds that when Park describes the situation of “if not,” as in: if an NSSAI and a full local unique temporary ID are not received in RRC, this suggests that the radio access control message is deliberately configured such that it does not comprise at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node (i.e., it does not include the GUTI). This is deliberate because the message is configured by programming logic. In addition, this enables the radio access node to make an independent selection of the destination access management node. Note that the term “independent” is not limited to being independent of something in particular. In park, the RAN makes a selection of the destination access management node that is independent from the GUTI.).
The Examiner finds that it 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 to combine Parks embodiments in a way that reads on claim 1 since Park describes the possibility of doing so. That is, Park discloses claim 1 except does not explicitly disclose that “the radio access control message does not comprise at least one piece of information relevant to the destination access management node.” However, Park describes the globally unique temporary UE identity (GUTI), relevant to the destination AMF, and that it is possible for the UE message to not include the identity, as described in Park. Accordingly, claim 1 is obvious as merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Furthermore, it is obvious that the UE could not send a message including all the broad possible pieces of information relevant to the destination access management node (i.e., location, time, availability, identifier, size, etc.). As such, there would exist at least one piece of relevant information that is not included in the message.
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Park taught:
The wireless communication method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
wherein the at least one piece of network slice information comprises at least one piece of Single-Network Slice Selection Assistant Information (S-NSSAI) (Park taught [0633] the UE may receive a Registration Accept message from the AMF as a response to the registration request message (S1920). In this case, if at least one of S-NSSAIs included in the requested NSSAI has been rejected by the AMF, the Registration Accept message may include a Reject Cause for the rejected S-NSSAI along with the rejected S-NSSAI)
and the method further comprises: deriving, by the communication device, at least one piece of requested network slice information for an application based on route selection rules or a local configuration (Park [0450] The NSSP associates the UE with an S-NSSAI and is used by the UE in order to determine a PDU session to which traffic will be routed. [0451] A network slice selection policy is provided for each application of a UE. This includes a rule by which an S-NSSAI can be mapped for each UE application. [0515] The establishment of a PDU session with a DN in a network slice allows data transmission in a network slice. A data network is associated with an S-NSSAI and a DNN. [0516] A network operator may provide a UE with a network slice selection policy (NSSP). The NSSP includes one or more NSSP rules. Each NSSP rule associates a specific S-NSSAI and an application, and may also include a default rule that matches all of applications with an S-NSSAI);
and determining, by the communication device, whether the at least one piece of requested network slice information matches the at least one piece of network slice information corresponding to the rejection information, wherein the registration request is transmitted in response to a result of the determining (Park taught [0633] the UE may receive a Registration Accept message from the AMF as a response to the registration request message (S1920). In this case, if at least one of S-NSSAIs included in the requested NSSAI has been rejected by the AMF, the Registration Accept message may include a Reject Cause for the rejected S-NSSAI along with the rejected S-NSSAI. In this case, the Reject Cause may be configured to indicate that the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in the PLMN and/or a current registration area. [0634] if the S-NSSAI has been rejected for a cause in which the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in a current registration area, the UE may not attempt a use request for the corresponding rejected S-NSSAI in the current registration area until the UE deviates from the registration area. [0600] if the rejection of an S-NSSAI is given in a registration Area Unit and the UE has Moved to Another Registration Area (i.e., if the UE has deviated from a current registration area in which the S-NSSAI has been rejected), the UE may reattempt a request to use the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area. Furthermore, if the S-NSSAI rejected in the current PLMN is deleted from the list (i.e., rejected/forbidden NSSAI) for any reason, the UE may request the corresponding S-NSSAI again although it does not deviate from the current registration area).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Park taught:
The wireless communication method of claim 1 (see rejection above),
wherein: the at least one piece of information relevant to a destination access management comprises at least one of 5G-S-TMSI and Globally Unique AMF ID, GUAMI (Park taught [0190] The Msg 3 has to include a UE identity. [0191] the UE transmits its unique identity (e.g., SAE(S)-TMSI or a random number). [0469] When registration is successfully performed, a UE is provided with a globally unique temporary UE identity (GUTI) by a serving AMF. [0470] When an NSSAI and a full local unique temporary ID are received in RRC, if an RAN can reach the AMF corresponding to a locally unique temporary ID, the RAN forwards a request to the corresponding AMF. If not, the RAN selects a suitable AMF based on an NSSAI provided by a UE and transmits the request to the selected AMF. If the RAN cannot select the AMF based on a provided NSSAI, the request is transmitted to a default AMF.),
and the requested network slice information does not comprise at least one piece of allowed network slice information (Park taught [0580] if an S-NSSAI requested by the UE corresponds to an S-NSSAI not allowed in the current PLMN and/or registration area of the UE, the corresponding requested S-NSSAI may be rejected.).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 1 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 2 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 1, except that it recites that the communication device “compris[es]: a communication unit; and a processor” to perform the operations, which are taught in Park [0639] (The UE 2020 includes a processor 2021, a memory 2022 and a communication module (or RF section). Processor 2021 implements the previously proposed functions, processes and/or methods. The layers of the wireless interface protocol may be implemented by the processor 2021. The memory 2022 is connected to the processor 2021 and stores various information for driving the processor 2021. The communication module 2023 is coupled to processor 2021 to transmit and/or receive wireless signals.).
Claim 13 is rejected for this reason along with the reasons given for claim 1.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 2 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 6 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 6 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
CLAIMS 4, 8, 9, AND 15-17
Claims 4, 8, 9, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Kim.
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Park taught:
The wireless communication method of claim 3 (see rejection above),
wherein the rejection cause comprises an indication that the at least one piece of network slice information is not supported within a wireless service area (Park taught [0634] if the S-NSSAI has been rejected for a cause in which the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in a current registration area, the UE may not attempt a use request for the corresponding rejected S-NSSAI in the current registration area until the UE deviates from the registration area. [0600] if the rejection of an S-NSSAI is given in a registration Area Unit and the UE has Moved to Another Registration Area (i.e., if the UE has deviated from a current registration area in which the S-NSSAI has been rejected), the UE may reattempt a request to use the S-NSSAI rejected in the previous registration area in the new registration area.),
the method further comprising: setting, by the communication device, the at least one piece of requested network slice information in a radio access control message, to allow a radio access node to select a destination access management node supporting the at least one piece of requested network slice information (Park taught [0496] The UE needs to include the requested NSSAI in RRC connection establishment and NAS message. An RAN needs to route an NAS signal between the UE and the AMF selected using the requested NSSAI obtained during the RRC connection establishment. [0605] if the AMF1 can support #1, #2 and #4 S-NSSAIs and the AMF2 can support #2, #3 and #5 S-NSSAIs, when a UE requests the #1, #2 and #3 S-NSSAIs as requested NSSAIs, a network may have to reject the #3 S-NSSAI (i.e., AMF1 selection) or the #1 S-NSSAI (i.e., AMF2 selection) depending on AMF selection. That is, the network may perform rejection for a specific S-NSSAI depending on a supportable S-NSSAI of a selected serving AMF. Accordingly, in this case, if the UE has moved to a different registration area or a different AMF has been selected, the UE needs to be able to request a rejected S-NSSAI again.),
wherein the wireless service area comprises a Registration Area (Park taught [0634] the rejected S-NSSAI is not available in a current registration area).
Park taught the limitations of claim 4 discussed above but Park did not explicitly teach that “the method further comprising: performing, by the communication device, a cell reselection in response to the rejection cause, to select a cell outside the wireless service area, and transmitting, by the communication device, the registration request via the selected cell.”
With respect to claim 4, Kim taught:
the method further comprising: performing, by the communication device, a cell reselection in response to the rejection cause, to select a cell outside the wireless service area, and transmitting, by the communication device, the registration request via the selected cell (Kim taught [0318] FIG. 9 shows an example of a method performed by a UE to which the first implementation of the present disclosure is applied. [0324] In step S930, the UE receives, from the AMF of the first PLMN, a registration reject message in response to the first registration request message. The registration reject message includes rejected NSSAI including the first S-NSSAI, and the registration reject message includes a cause value #62 for the rejected NSSAI. The cause value #62 indicates "No network slices available". [0354] According to the first implementation of the present disclosure, as an operation when the UE receives the cause value #62,if the UE has neither allowed NSSAI for the current PLMN or SNPN nor configured NSSAI for the current PLMN and has a default configured NSSAI containing one or more S-NSSAIs that are not included in any of the rejected NSSAI for the PLMN or SNPN, the rejected NSSAI for the current registration area, and the rejected NSSAI for the failed or revoked NSSAA, the UE may stay in the current serving cell, apply the normal cell reselection process, and start an initial registration by generating a requested NSSAI based on that default configured NSSAI. [0366] According to the first implementation of the present disclosure, by determining the S-NSSAI that can be transmitted based on the default configured NSSAI, unnecessary PLMN selection procedure and registration procedure can be efficiently removed).
The Examiner finds that it 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 to implement Kim’s cell reselection NSSAI request technique in Park’s NSSAI requesting method with the motivation to do so being to enable the communication device to proceed with requesting an S-NSSAI that has not yet been rejected, and also to avoid an unnecessary PLMN selection and registration procedure as discussed in [0366]. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art of wireless communication would be familiar with 5G technology and standards and that they would have a reasonable expectations of success of implementing Kim’s technique in Park’s method as discussed above since both Park and Kim are directed to the same 5G technology and similar techniques of requesting an S-NSSAI and handling rejected S-NSSAIs.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 4 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 4 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 4 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites limitations similar to limitations of claim 4 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as discussed below.
On page 8 Applicant argued: “Park does not teach a rejection cause comprising an indication that the at least one piece of network slice information is supported within a current wireless service area and not compatible with an allowed network slice information.” As discussed in the previous rejection and expanded upon (in response to the claim amendments) above, the Examiner finds that Park taught wherein the rejection cause (i.e., the reject cause for the rejected S-NSSAI) comprises an indication that the at least one piece of network slice information is supported within a current wireless service area (i.e., is supported by the AMF, depending on AMF selection, as in the example cited above regarding AMF1 support of #1, #2 and #4 S-NSSAIs and AMF2 support of #2, #3 and #5 S-NSSAIs) and not compatible with an allowed network slice information, thereby indicating a technical incompatibility (i.e., a specific AMF can support both #1 and #2 slices/S-NSSAIs, but the two slices/S-NSSAIs may be configured so that only one of them can be used… a Reject Cause for (currently) rejected S-NSSAIs is not co-existable with other S-NSSAIs, which is a technical incompatibility)).
On page 9 Applicant argued “Applicant submits that Park does not teach or suggest a deliberate nature.” The Examiner addressed the newly added limitation in the rejection above.
On page 9, Applicant argued “Applicant submits that Park does not teach or suggest… enabling RAN-based selection, which is distinct from any incidental omission or generic routing in Park.” Here, Applicant argued limitations which are not claimed. The arguments appear to be directed to the “independent selection” limitation, which is addressed in the rejection above.
On page 10, Applicant argues for patentability by asserting that “This provides for a purposeful configuration (e.g., not comprising certain information) capable of achieving a specific outcome of avoiding previous rejections.” The Examiner notes that the claims are not limited to “avoiding previous rejections.” Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it argues limitations that are not claimed.
Applicant’s Remarks continue to reiterate arguments regarding “independent selection,” “avoiding previous rejections,” “deliberate” and so on, which have already been addressed in this section above.
To summarize and provide a suggestion, Applicant argues that “Park does not teach or appreciate the technical nature of incompatibility and a deliberate, functional consequence of information omission” but Applicant does not include language limiting the claims to this. If this argument is to be maintained, the Examiner suggests amending the claims to define these terms in order to differentiate the prior art. However, the current claims as amended lack written description as discussed in the §112 rejections above. The Examiner suggests following the language of the original disclosure or providing specific explanation of how the disclosure supports the claim language.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Davis whose telephone number is 703-756-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 11AM to 7PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/C.R.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476