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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 02, 2026 has been entered. In addition, in response to the Amendment filed on March 02, 2026, claims 1, 3-7, 14-17 and 21- 28 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14-17 and 21- 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
Claims 1, 14 and 21 have been amended to include “ wherein the second subset is different than the first subset”.
The specification does not appear to have sufficient support for the new amended limitation: " wherein the second subset is different than the first subset". Applicant did not points where in the original specification the support for the noted above limitation. It’s the Examiner position that there is no explicit teaching in the specification teaches that the second subset is different than the first subset. If Applicant disagrees, Applicant needs to provide sufficient evidence in support thereof. Upon receiving proper evidence, this specific rejection will be withdrawn.
Dependent claims 3-7, 15-17 and 22- 28 are also rejected since they are depended upon rejection claims set forth above.
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- 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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); 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); 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.).
Regarding claim 28, claim 21 is incorporated as stated above. In addition, the combination of Starsinic and Lanev further discloses “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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
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