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 .
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2022/0377659 to Venkatraman in view of U.S. Pub. 2020/0305054 to Zee and further in view of U.S. Patent 12,010,611 to Prakasam.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Venkatraman teaches a method, comprising:
determining, by a first terminal device, a target network slice (see Fig. 4 step 410, as described in sections [0056] to [0058], where a UE is using or wants to use a “particular slice” (where this particular slice is the “determined target network slice”);
determining, by the first terminal device, a first public land mobile network (PLMN) based on the target network slice (see sections [0056] to [0058], which teach that the identified slices are indicated as supported by a particular PLMN); and
determining, by the first terminal device, a first cell based on the first PLMN and the target network slice (see steps 415,420 and 425, as described in sections [0060] to [0061], where a UE connects to the determined cell which has enough signal strength and supports the determined slice/PLMN, as recited).
For completeness, as Venkatraman teaches one PLMN, Zee is added to show multiple PLMNs.
In an analogous art, Zee teaches a wireless system which broadcasts lists of PLMNs and the slices that each different PLMN supports. See for example, Figs. 9 and 11 and sections [0161] to [0168], which teach broadcasting PLMN IDs, slice IDs and tracking area identities (TAIs).
Therefore, as both Venkatraman and Zee teach broadcasting slice IDs supported by PLMN cells, and as Zee explicitly teaches broadcasting multiple PLMNs with their associated slices, it would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman with the multiple PLMNs of Zee, for the reasons as in sections [0161] to [0168] of Zee, which are that it enhances handovers to other networks when slice support is already known to the UE.
Regarding the feature which recites “determining, by the first terminal device, a first public land mobile network (PLMN) from a plurality of PLMNs…”, new sections of Venkatraman are cited to address this feature. For example, section [0023] teaches that different network carriers (Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T) operate the RAN nodes 120/122/124. These different carriers are interpreted as being different PLMNs. See also sections [0034] to [0036], which teach that different carriers/slices operate on different frequency bands and the UE may switch RAN nodes (thereby switching PLMNs) to support the selected slice.
Therefore, Venkatraman appears to “determine a PLMN from a number of PLMNs” without explicitly using the “PLMN” acronym, as Venkatraman implicitly teaches this newly claimed concept as different carriers are different PLMNs.
Regarding the previous amendments to claim 1, which recited:
“the determining the target network slice comprising: receiving, by the first terminal device from a first core network device, network slice information, wherein the network slice information indicates allowed or supported network slices of different radio access network devices or different cells within a first area range; and
determining, by the first terminal device, the target network slice based on the network slice information, wherein the target network slice is in the allowed or supported network slices of the different radio access network devices or the different cells within the first area range”,
see for example, section [0167] of Zee, which teaches “The core network node 19 may provide information of the current slice(s) for the wireless device 10 to the radio network node 12, and in addition it may provide information about any equivalent slices for the current slice(s) for the wireless device 10.”, and see section [0166] of Zee, for providing tracking area identifiers (which support certain identified slices), where the tracking areas are the recited “first area range”.
Regarding the current amendments to claim 1
after the determining the target network slice, determining, by the first terminal device based on the target network slice, a first public land mobile network (PLMN) from a plurality of PLMNs each supporting the target network slice, Prakasam is added.
In an analogous art, Prakasam teaches a wireless system which allows a UE to select a PLMN after a slice is selected/determined (see the Abstract). As described in Fig. 6, a roaming UE sends a request for a list of EPLMNs which support a specific slice (identified by the S-NSSAI see steps 610 and 612 as described in column 12, lines 14-22). In response to this request the UE receives a list of EPLMNs and then selects one of these PLMNs (from the list of EPLMNs) and sends a registration request to that selected PLMN for the given slice (see steps 618 and 620 as described in column 12, lines 22-51). Therefore, Prakasam teaches the newly recited feature that a PLMN is determined after the slice is selected.
Therefore, as both Venkatraman and Zee teach broadcasting slice IDs supported by PLMN cells, and as Zee explicitly teaches broadcasting multiple PLMNs with their associated slices, it would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman with the multiple PLMNs of Zee, for the reasons as in sections [0161] to [0168] of Zee, which are that it enhances handovers to other networks when slice support is already known to the UE.
Claims 3-4, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Patent Pub. 2020/0221372 to Shih.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, which recite “the determining the a first PLMN comprising: detecting, by an access stratum (AS) of the first terminal device within a full band range, a cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to a second threshold; sending, by the AS, a cell identifier corresponding to the cell and information about supported PLMNs to a non-access stratum (NAS) of the first terminal device; determining, by the NAS based on the network slice information, an identifier of a radio access network device or a cell that allows the target network slice; determining, by the NAS as a target cell, a cell whose corresponding cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the cell allowing the target network slice and that is in the cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to the second threshold, or determining, by the NAS as the target cell, a cell whose radio access network device identifier in a corresponding cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the radio access network device allowing the target network slice and that is in the cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to the second threshold; and determining, by the NAS, a PLMN with a highest priority as the first PLMN based on information about the supported PLMNs of the target cell”, although Venkatraman and Zee teach the NAS layer, as they do not teach the features of NAS and AS in claim 3, Shih is added.
In an analogous art, Shih teaches a wireless system which broadcasts lists of PLMNs and frequencies for each cell in the PLMN (see section [0040]). As described in sections [0041] and [0048], Shih teaches the AS layer reporting to the NAS layer the PLMNs (cells) found and then the NSS layer performs a PLMN cell selection process. For example, section [0048] teaches “In one implementation, the UE may read the system information of the N4-strongest cells on carrier frequency f1, wherein the signal strength of N4-strongest cells may be above a threshold (e.g., fulfill the S criterion).” Regarding the “priority” of cells, see sections [0076], [0126] and [0128], which teach that cell priorities are broadcasted in the SIBs, with their associated frequencies. It is noted that the features of slices associated with cells are shown in Venkatraman and Zee.
Therefore, as Venkatraman/Zee teach broadcasting slice IDs supported by PLMN cells, and as Shih also teaches receiving PLMN/cell information and the NAS and AS layers determining the PLMN target cell (as recited), it would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman/Zee with the NAS/AS layer communications of Shih, for the reasons as in Shih, which are that these conventional layers each have their respective functions in relation to cell selection.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, which recite “the determining the first PLMN based on the target network slice comprising: determining, by a non-access stratum (NAS) of the first terminal device based on the network slice information, an identifier of a radio access network device or a cell that allows the target network slice; sending, by the NAS to an access stratum (AS) of the first terminal device, the identifier of the radio access network device or the cell that allows the target network slice; detecting, by the AS within a full band range, a cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to a second threshold; determining, by the AS as a target cell, a cell whose corresponding cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the cell allowing the target network slice and that is in the cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to the second threshold, or determining, by the AS as the target cell, a cell whose radio access network device identifier in a corresponding cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the radio access network device allowing the target network slice and that is in the cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to the second threshold; sending, by the AS, information about supported PLMNs of the target cell to the NAS; and determining, by the NAS, a PLMN with a highest priority as the first PLMN based on PLMN information”, as described above, regarding the first steps of the NAS determining the cell based on the slice information, see sections [0045] to [0048] of Venkatraman. Regarding the AS layer determining the cell based on the threshold, see section [0048] of Shih. Regarding the step of sending, by the AS, information about supported PLMNs of the target cell to the NAS, see section [0048] of Shih. Regarding the last step of the NAS determining the highest PLMN priority, see sections [0226] and [0293] of Zee and [0045] to [0048] of Venkatraman. Therefore, the combination of these references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, which recite “wherein the first area range is an area range of at least one tracking area (TA)”, see section [0057] of Venkatraman and sections [0028], [0120] to [0121], [0166] and [0171] to [0173] of Zee, which explicitly teach using a tracking area, as recited.
Regarding claims 8 and 16, which recite “wherein the first area range is an area range of at least one registration area (RA)”, see sections [0045] to [0048] and [0054] of Venkatraman, which explicitly teach using registration areas, as recited.
Regarding claim 21, which recites “wherein the determining the first PLMN from the plurality of PLMNs comprises: obtaining network slice information indicating which radio access network devices or cells support the target network slice (see sections [0056] to [0058] of Venkatraman, which teach that the identified slices are indicated as supported by a particular PLMN and see steps 415 ,420 and 425, as described in sections [0060] to [0061] of Venkatraman, where a UE connects to the determined cell which has enough signal strength and supports the determined slice/PLMN); detecting cells having signal strength above a threshold (see section [0060] of Venkatraman and section [0119] of Shih); correlating the detected cells with the network slice information to identify one or more target cells that support the target network slice (see sections [0060] to [0061] of Venkatraman); and selecting the first PLMN from PLMNs supported by the one or more target cells based on the target network slice and a PLMN priority, and wherein the determining the first PLMN from the plurality of PLMNs is before the determining the first cell”, see steps 106, 108 and 110 in Shih (as described in sections [0039] to [0044]) and see the table in section [0119] of Shih which mentions using signal strength thresholds along with the higher priority PLMNs, where steps 106-110 and 302-306 of Shih and Venkatraman teach determining the PLMN before the cell in that PLMN is selected based on the cell’s detected signal strength. Therefore, the combination of the teachings within the references would teach and/or render obvious these features.
Regarding claim 22, which recites “wherein the determining the first cell comprises: identifying which of the one or more target cells belong to the first PLMN; obtaining signal strength measurements for the one or more target cells that belong to the first PLMN; and selecting the first cell from the one or more target cells that belong to the first PLMN based on at least one of a cell priority or a signal strength ranking”, as described above, see steps106-110 and 302-306 of Shih, which teach determining the PLMN and the signal strengths of the cells in that PLMN, and then subsequently selecting the highest signal strength cell, as recited.
Claims 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 4 and 12 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2021/0112489 to Kim.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, which recite “the determining the first cell based on the first PLMN and the target network slice comprising: detecting, by the AS from all cells covered by the first PLMN, the cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to the second threshold; detecting, by the AS from the cell whose received signal power is greater than or equal to the second threshold, a cell whose received signal power is greater than a first threshold; sending, by the AS to the NAS, a cell identifier corresponding to the cell whose received signal power is greater than the first threshold; determining, by the NAS based on the network slice information, the identifier of the radio access network device or the cell that allows the target network slice; and determining, by the NAS as the first cell, a cell whose corresponding cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the cell allowing the target network slice and that is in the cell whose received signal power is greater than the first threshold, or determining, by the NAS as the first cell, a cell whose radio access network device identifier in a corresponding cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the radio access network device allowing the target network slice and that is in the cell whose received signal power is greater than the first threshold”, it is noted that the difference between claim 4 and claim 5 is the introduction of a “first threshold”, so Kim is added.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches a wireless system which uses the AS and NAS to select cells. See for example, Figs. 2C and 2D and section [0150], which teaches “The present disclosure proposes a method of collecting PLMN information from cells providing N highest signal strengths for every unlicensed band carrier. To exclude cells providing extremely low signal strengths, a new threshold value may be introduced.”
Therefore, as Venkatraman/Zee and Shih teach using the AS and NAS layers to select a PLMN/cell using a “second threshold”, and as Kim explicitly teaches using another (recited “first threshold” unlicensed bands), it would have been obvious to modify Venkatraman/Zee/Shih with the multiple thresholds of Kim, for the reasons as in Kim, which are that different types of networks/bands (such as a private user network using unlicensed bands) may have different thresholds and these thresholds need to be considered for proper network selection.
It is also noted that the claim language does not define that the first and second thresholds are different from each other and/or one threshold is higher than the other.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, which recite “the determining the first cell based on the first PLMN and the target network slice comprising: sending, by the NAS to the AS, the identifier of the radio access network device or the cell that allows the target network slice; detecting, by the AS in a cell that is in cells covered by the first PLMN and whose cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the cell allowing the target network slice, the cell whose received signal power is greater than a first threshold, or detecting, by the AS in a cell that is in the cells covered by the first PLMN and whose radio access network device identifier comprised in a cell identifier is the same as the identifier of the radio access network device allowing the target network slice, a cell whose received signal power is greater than the first threshold; sending, by the AS to the NAS, an identifier of the cell whose received signal power is greater than the first threshold; and determining, by the NAS, the first cell from the cell whose received signal power is greater than the first threshold”, as described above, see section [0150] of Kim, which teaches using another threshold in the cell selection process between AS and NAS layers. Therefore, the combination of these references would teach and/or render obvious these features, as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with the claims have been considered but are not persuasive and/or moot because of the new grounds of rejection (Prakasam).
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 STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights