Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This in response to the Amendment filed on August 12, 2026, claims 1, 3-7, 14-17 and 21- 27 and 29-31 are presented for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 3-7, 14-17 and 21- 27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic et al US (2024/0381240 A1) in view of Lanev et al (US Pub. No. 2022/0322221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Starsinic discloses “An apparatus” (see Starsinic Fig. 1B); comprising “processor circuitry” (see Starsinic Fig. 1B, element 118) , “to: generate, for transmission, to an access and mobility management function (AMF), a registration request message” (see Starsinic figure 2 and ¶ 0132; ; the UE sends a Registration Request to the AMF); “with requested network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; the registration request or message provide NSSAI information); “that contains a first single-NSSAI (S-NSSAI) that corresponds to a first slice with which a user equipment (UE) requests registration” (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; The NSSAI information list or include S-NSSAIs and corresponding Slices that the user wants to register; [hint, the NSSAI include plurality of S-NSSAIs and corresponding slices that include at least first and second NSSAI])); “and a second (S-NSSAI) that corresponds to a second slice with which a user equipment (UE) requests registration’ (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; The NSSAI information list or include S-NSSAIs and corresponding Slices that the user wants to register; [hint, the NSSAI include plurality of S-NSSAIs and corresponding slices that include at least first and second NSSAI])); “and receive, in response to the registration request message, a registration accept message” (see Starsinic figure 2 and ¶ 0134, ¶ 0161; The AMF respond to the Registration Request by sending a Registration Accept Message.,) “that indicates the first slice is allowed in a first subset of tracking areas (TAs) of a registration area (RA)” (see Starsinic ¶ 0164; the AMF determines that a slice can be accessed by the UE only in a subset of the TAs in the RA and send the UE information include or be a list of slices (e.g., S-NSSAI's) that the UE can access in the RA, but not in all TAs of the RA; also ¶ 0193 discloses receive registration accept which includes information indicating one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI and information indicating one or more first TAs which support the one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs; ¶ 0208 discloses receive a first registration accept includes information indicating that one or more S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI are allowed and indicating one or more first TAs do not support the one or more allowed S-NSSAIs); “and the second slice is allowed in a second subset of tracking areas (TAs) of a registration area (RA)” (see Starsinic ¶ 0164; the AMF determines that a slice can be accessed by the UE only in a subset of the TAs in the RA and send the UE information include or be a list of slices (e.g., S-NSSAI's) that the UE can access in the RA, but not in all TAs of the RA; also ¶ 0193 discloses receive registration accept which includes information indicating one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI and information indicating one or more first TAs which support the one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs; ¶ 0208 discloses receive a first registration accept includes information indicating that one or more S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI are allowed and indicating one or more first TAs do not support the one or more allowed S-NSSAIs); “wherein the registration accept message is received in a first TA of the RA, and wherein the first TA is not included in the first subset of TAs”; (see Starsinic ¶ 0193, ¶ 0222, 0228); and “ interface circuitry coupled to the processor circuitry to enable communication” (see Starsinic fig. 1B).
Starsinic does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the second subset is different than the first subset”.
However, Lanev discloses “wherein the second subset is different than the first subset” (See Lanev Fig. 3 and ¶s 0077, ¶ 0079; Discloses that registration accept message indicates the registration area including a list (i.e., TAI list) of one or more TAs (TAIs). In addition, the registration accept message includes a list of one or more conditionally allowed network slice identifiers (i.e., S-NSSAIs). Each conditionally allowed S-NSSAI is not available in every part of the registration area of the UE 4 ) and figure 3A shows that S-NSSAI-1 is accepted in TAI-1 and S-NSSAI-2 is accepted in TAI-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Starsinic and Lanev before him or her, to modify the invention of Kim to indicate that different slices are allowed in different TAs. The suggestion for doing so would have been to allow the UE to easily utilize a network slice that is only supported by sparsely (or patchily) placed local cells (¶ 0083).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “wherein the registration request message further contains a third S-NSSAI that corresponds to a third slice, ((See Starsinic ¶ 0132; The NSSAI information list or include S-NSSAIs and corresponding Slices that the user wants to register; [hint, the NSSAI include plurality of S-NSSAIs and corresponding slices that include three NSSAIs]; also, ¶ 0161 discloses that the Allowed NSSAI in the Registration Accept Message may only include 4 slices, the 4 slices may be the 5 slices that the WTRU 102 requested, which shows that the registration message can include up to 5 S-NSSAs for 5 corresponding slices) “and the registration accept message indicates the third slice is rejected in at least one TA of the RA”; ( Starsinic ¶ 0110 ; a rejected S-NSSAI may be an information element that the network may send to a WTRU 102 in a Registration Accept; ¶ 0134 Registration Accept Message indicate that registration to one or more slices that are not available in the UE current TA is not accepted).
Regarding claim 4, claim 3 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “wherein the registration accept message indicates the third slice is rejected in all TAs of the RA”; (see Starsinic ¶ 0134; The Registration Accept Message may indicate that registration to one or more slices that are not available in current TA is not accepted which cause indication for each of the rejected slices may indicate that the S-NSSAI is not available in the current whole RA).
Regarding claim 5, claim 3 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “wherein the at least one TA is less than all TAs of the RA.”; (see Starsinic ¶ 0133; An AMF determine that it is efficient to define a RA for the WTRU that includes some TAs where slices of the WTRU's Configured NSSAI are not available and other TAs where the same slices of the WTRU's Configured NSSAI are available. For example, a slice-X may be in the WTRU's configured NSSAI and the WTRU's RA may include some TAs where the slice-X).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “wherein processor circuitary is further to: store, in a table, an indication of the slice being allowed in the subset of TAs of the RA”; (see Starsinic Fig. 3A, ¶ 0008 and ¶ 0079)
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “wherein processor circuitry is further to: generate the registration request message after powering up in a first TA; or generate the registration request message after moving to a second TA”; (see Starsinic ¶ 0142; may move to a second TA of the RA and Detecting that one or more of the previously allowed slices is not available in the second TA may trigger the WTRU to attempt to de-register with one or more of the previously allowed slices by sending a Registration Request to the network and not including one or more of the previously allowed slices in the Requested NSSAI of the Registration Request);
Regarding claim 14, Starsinic discloses “A method of” (See Kim, Figs 1); the method comprising “receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a registration request message” (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; the UE sends a Registration Request to the AMF); “with requested network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI)” (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; the registration request or message provide NSSAI information); ”that contains a first single- NSSAI (S-NSSAI) that corresponds to a slice with which the UE requests registration” (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; The NSSAI information list or include S-NSSAIs and corresponding Slices that the user wants to register; [hint, the NSSAI include plurality of S-NSSAIs and corresponding slices that include at least first and second NSSAI])); “and a second (S-NSSAI) that corresponds to a second slice with which a user equipment (UE) requests registration’ (See Starsinic ¶ 0132; The NSSAI information list or include S-NSSAIs and corresponding Slices that the user wants to register; [hint, the NSSAI include plurality of S-NSSAIs and corresponding slices that include at least first and second NSSAI]));; “and generating for transmission, based on the registration request message, a registration accept message” (see Starsinic figure 2 and ¶ 0134, ¶ 0161; The AMF respond to the Registration Request by sending a Registration Accept Message.,) “that indicates the first slice is allowed in a first subset of tracking areas (TAs) of a registration area (RA)” (see Starsinic ¶ 0164; the AMF determines that a slice can be accessed by the UE only in a subset of the TAs in the RA and send the UE information include or be a list of slices (e.g., S-NSSAI's) that the UE can access in the RA, but not in all TAs of the RA; also ¶ 0193 discloses receive registration accept which includes information indicating one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI and information indicating one or more first TAs which support the one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs; ¶ 0208 discloses receive a first registration accept includes information indicating that one or more S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI are allowed and indicating one or more first TAs do not support the one or more allowed S-NSSAIs); “and the second slice is allowed in a second subset of tracking areas (TAs) of a registration area (RA)” (see Starsinic ¶ 0164; the AMF determines that a slice can be accessed by the UE only in a subset of the TAs in the RA and send the UE information include or be a list of slices (e.g., S-NSSAI's) that the UE can access in the RA, but not in all TAs of the RA; also ¶ 0193 discloses receive registration accept which includes information indicating one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI and information indicating one or more first TAs which support the one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs; ¶ 0208 discloses receive a first registration accept includes information indicating that one or more S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI are allowed and indicating one or more first TAs do not support the one or more allowed S-NSSAIs); “wherein the registration accept message is received in a first TA of the RA, and wherein the first TA is not included in the first subset of TAs”; (see Starsinic ¶ 0193, ¶ 0222, 0228); and “ interface circuitry coupled to the processor circuitry to enable communication” (see Starsinic fig. 1B).
Starsinic does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein the second subset is different than the first subset”.
However, Lanev discloses “wherein the second subset is different than the first subset” (See Lanev Fig. 3 and ¶s 0077, ¶ 0079; Discloses that registration accept message indicates the registration area including a list (i.e., TAI list) of one or more TAs (TAIs). In addition, the registration accept message includes a list of one or more conditionally allowed network slice identifiers (i.e., S-NSSAIs). Each conditionally allowed S-NSSAI is not available in every part of the registration area of the UE 4 ) and figure 3A shows that S-NSSAI-1 is accepted in TAI-1 and S-NSSAI-2 is accepted in TAI-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Starsinic and Lanev before him or her, to modify the invention of Kim to indicate that different slices are allowed in different TAs. The suggestion for doing so would have been to allow the UE to easily utilize a network slice that is only supported by sparsely (or patchily) placed local cells (¶ 0083).
Claims 15 - 17 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 3 - 7 that have been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claims 3 - 7. Claims 15 – 17 are rejected under the same rational as claims 3 - 7.
Claims 21 - 26 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1 and 3- 7 that have been rejected above. Applicant attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1 and 3- 7. Claims 21 – 26 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1 and 3- 7.
Regarding claim 27, claim 21 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “wherein the registration accept message indicates an allowed NSSAI that includes all S-NSSAIs of the requested NSSAI, including the first and second S-NSSAIs, that are supported in at least one TA of the RA”, ((See Starsinic ¶ 0193; may receive a first registration accept which includes information indicating one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs of the first requested NSSAI and information indicating one or more first TAs which support the one or more service area limited S-NSSAIs.).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic et al US (2024/0381240 A1) in view of Lanev et al (US Pub. No. 2022/0322221 A1) and further in view of Park et al (US 2023/0021988 A1).
Most of the limitations of claim 29 have been noted in the rejection of claim 21. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 21 above. the combination of Starsinic and Lanev does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the registration accept message further indicates that the first slice is allowed in a subset of closed access groups (CAGs) of the RA. However, Park discloses wherein the registration accept message further indicates that the first slice is allowed in a subset of closed access groups (CAGs) of the RA.; (See Park ¶ 0110, ¶ 0123, ¶ 0124). ”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of the combination of Starsinic, Lanev and Park before him or her, to modify the invention of (the combination of Starsinic and Lanev) to incorporate the teaching of Park and provide information about the updated lists of CAGs and allowed slice. The suggestion for doing so would have been there is a need for technology that provide private network slices by using a wireless communication system (¶s 0002, ¶ 0012) .
Claims 30-31 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Starsinic et al US (2024/0381240 A1) in view of Lanev et al (US Pub. No. 2022/0322221 A1) and further in view of TAKAKURA et al. Publication No. (US 2022/0272621 A1).
Most of the limitations of claim 30 have been noted in the rejection of claim 21. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 21 above. the combination of Starsinic and Lanev does not explicitly teach wherein the requested NSSAI further includes a network slice steering of roaming (NSSoR) indication to request an NSSoR update associated with at least one visited public land mobile network (VPLMN). However, TAKAKURA teaches wherein the requested NSSAI further includes a network slice steering of roaming (NSSoR) indication to request an NSSoR update associated with at least one visited public land mobile network (VPLMN). (TAKAKURA: in step 501 of FIG.5, the UE 1 includes sends a registration request message with a steering of roaming indication in a NAS registration request message sent to the VPLMN AMF 32. The NAS registration request message may be one of “initial registration”, “periodic registration updating”, or “mobility registration updating”. The NAS registration request message further contains at least one, SLICE-AWARE SOR INDICATION [0085-91] fig.5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Starsinic and Lanev by the teaching of TAKAKURA to include both NSSAI and SOR in the registration request message in order to the UE update its “Slice-aware PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list with the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations included in the SOR information (TAKAKURA: [0082-84] fig.5).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Starsinic, Lanev and Takakura further teaches wherein the registration accept message further indicated slice-support information for the at least one VPLMN and priority information associated with network selection ( See Takakura figure 4 and ¶0081 the VPLMN AMF 32 sends the received SOR information to the UE via a registration accept message. The UE 1 then updates its “Operator Controlled PLMN Selector with Access Technology” list with the list of preferred PLMN/access technology combinations included in the SOR information. In this case, if the UE 1 is in automatic network selection mode and the UE 1 determines based on the list that there is a higher priority VPLMN than the current serving VPLMN (camped VPLMN), the UE 1 attempts to obtain a service on the higher priority VPLMN.).
.
Response to Argument(s)
Applicant's argument(s) filed on August 12, 2012 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Also, arguments submitted are moot in view of the new ground rejection. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance that:
The applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites that the registration accept message is received in a first TA of the RA, and the first TA is not included in the first subset of TAs. In the rejection of claim 28, the Office Action alleges that Starsinic teaches these features in paragraphs [0193], [0222], and [0228]. However, it is noted that the present application has a priority date of March 29, 2022 (based on a priority claim to Indian patent application 2022/41018461). Starsinic is a U.S. non-provisional application that was filed July 25, 2024 and claims priority to a PCT application (PCT/US2023/011308) filed January 23, 2023, and U.S. provisional application No. 63/303,574 (hereinafter "the '574 provisional application"). Accordingly, Starsinic only qualifies as prior art for the present application with respect to subject matter disclosed in the '574 provisional application. However, the '574 provisional application does not include the description from paragraphs [0193], [0222], and [0228] cited by the Office Action in the rejection of claim 28. Furthermore, the '574 provisional application does.
In response. Examiner respectively disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The ‘574 provisional (¶ 0136) discloses The WTRU 102 may use the SSSA information to determine that one or more slices that were in the Allowed NSSAI in the Registration Accept message are not available in the second TA. Also ‘574 provisional (¶ 0161) discloses the network may send a Registration Accept Message to the WTRU 102. By way of example, the Allowed NSSAI in the Registration Accept Message may only include 4 slices. The 4 slices may be the 5 slices that the WTRU 102 requested in the previous step minus slice-X. In addition, ‘574 provisional disclose At6. in FIG. 2, the AMF 182 may send a Registration Accept message to the WTRU 102 which includes information indicating the 5 slices from the Requested NSSAI that was provided previously at 5. Thus, the WTRU 102 is now registered to Slice- (see ¶ 0170), And disclose at (¶ 0182 and figure 3) that At. 9. in FIG. 3, the AMF sends a Registration Accept message to the WTRU 102 which includes all 5 slices from the Requested NSSAI that was provided previously at 5. Thus, the WTRU 102 is now registered to Slice-x. Thus, the the '574 provisional application clearly meets the scope of the claimed limitation as currently presented and include description from paragraphs [0193], [0222], and [0228] cited by the Office Action in the rejection of the argued limitation.
All other arugmetns with regarding to the new claims 29-31 are moot in view of the new ground of rejection .
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 KHALED M KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3770. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 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.
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.
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights