DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 11 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection of claims 1-26 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 7-8] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 12-13, 26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on page 8, Applicant argues that Ninglekhu fails to teach “receiving the network slice assistance from the network node indicating access to a first network slice in a first Tracking Area, TA, but not in an entire Registration Area, RA”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
As currently recited, by no further detailing the context of “but not in…”, this negative limitation is met at least when a reference is silent about it. That is, the claim does not provide further details about the relevancy or novelty of indicating an access to a network slice only in a TA, even though it was apparently expected to be indicated in an entire RA.
For example, without stating that there is support for the following limitations, it would appear that Applicant is intending to claim something like: “receiving the network slice assistance from the network node indicating access to a first network slice only in a first TA, but not in an entire RA that expected to receive the network slice assistance”. If the claim recited this type of exemplary limitations, which are contextually describing the scope of the claim, then the Examiner would be precluded from instant interpretation and previous rejection would be withdrawn.
Hence, the teachings in Paragraphs 22, 81, 91 of Ninglekhu indicate the interaction between UE and network for receiving the NSSAIs in TA, and Ninglekhu does not recite that the assistance is valid for the entire RA.
Regarding claims 12-13, 26, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 8, 13-14, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-26 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-16, 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ninglekhu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0052699).
Regarding claim 1, Ninglekhu teaches a method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for accessing a network slice, the method comprising:
during registration with a network node, requesting network slice assistance (UE registers with network and requests slice assistance [Paragraphs 7, 22, 91]);
receiving network slice assistance from the network node indicating access to a first network slice in a first Tracking Area, TA, but not in an entire Registration Area, RA (NSSAI is received for accessing the slice in a TA, not in RA [Paragraph 81]. Additionally, as currently recited, by no further detailing the context of “but not in…”, this negative limitation is met at least when a reference is silent about it. That is, the claim does not provide further details about the relevancy or novelty of indicating an access to a network slice only in a TA, even though it was apparently expected to be indicated in an entire RA. For example, without stating that there is support for the following limitations, it would appear that Applicant is intending to claim something like: “receiving the network slice assistance from the network node indicating access to a first network slice only in a first TA, but not in an entire RA that expected to receive the network slice assistance”. If the claim recited this type of exemplary limitations, which are contextually describing the scope of the claim, then the Examiner would be precluded from instant interpretation and previous rejection would be withdrawn); and
accessing the first network slice in the first TA (then the UE access the network slice [Paragraphs 62, 91, 209]).
Regarding claim 2, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
requesting network slice assistance comprises including a Requested Network Slice Selection Assistance Information, NSSAI, Information Element, IE, in a registration request message (NSSAI IR included in registration request [Paragraphs 28, 104, 169, 314, 350]); and
receiving network slice assistance from the network node comprises receiving at least one of an Allowed NSSAI IE and a Rejected NSSAI IE in a registration accept message from the network node (NSSAI IE received in acceptance/rejection [Paragraphs 13, 21, 166-167, 172]).
Regarding claim 3, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising indicating to the network node that the UE is capable of supporting slice deployments that are not available across the entire RA (notified that UE supports deployments [Paragraphs 83, 86, 91, 109, 134]).
Regarding claim 8, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving network slice assistance from the network node comprises receiving an indication of which network slices are not allowed in which TA of the RA ([Paragraphs 23-24, 62, 64, 126, 128]).
Regarding claim 9, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the indication of which network slices are not allowed in which TA of the RA is received in one or more of: a list of one or more TAs in which the network slice is available; and a list of one or more TAs in which the network slice is not available ([Paragraphs 23-24, 62, 64, 126, 128]).
Regarding claim 10, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving network slice assistance from the network node comprises receiving an indication that the first network slice is not available in a current TA ([Paragraphs 21, 64, 126, 128]).
Regarding claim 11, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 10, wherein accessing the first network slice in the first TA comprises:
entering the first TA ([Paragraphs 207, 209]);
requesting a service provided by the first network slice ([Paragraphs 127, 216]);
receiving a rejection with a cause value of “S-NSSAI not available in current Tracking Area” ([Paragraphs 12, 172, 181]).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-15, 22-25, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-3, 8-11.
Regarding claim 16, Ninglekhu further teaches the wherein if the network node does not have an indication that the UE is capable of supporting slice deployments that are not available across the entire RA, providing network slice assistance to the UE comprises indicating the UE is not allowed to access the first network slice in the RA ([Paragraphs 15, 17, 22]).
Regarding claim 26, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 13.
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 of this title, 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 4-7 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninglekhu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0052699) in view of Ianev et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0337380).
Regarding claim 4, Ninglekhu teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Ninglekhu does not explicitly mention: wherein receiving network slice assistance from the network node comprises receiving an indication of which network slices are allowed in which TA of the RA.
Ianev teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication system, the following:
wherein receiving network slice assistance from the network node comprises receiving an indication of which network slices are allowed in which TA of the RA (indication of the allowed TA/RA is receiving in the assistance from the node [Paragraphs 62-63, 67]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Ninglekhu) by specifying network slices (as taught by Ianev) for the purpose of supporting network-controlled privacy of slice information (Ianev – Paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 5, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the indication of which network slices are allowed in which TA of the RA is received in the Allowed NSSAI IE (indication of TA/RA being received in NSSAI [Paragraphs 23-24, 91, 213]).
Regarding claim 6, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the indication of which network slices are allowed in which TA of the RA is received in an Allowed NSSAI Per TA IE for slices that are not available in all TAs of the RA (no availability in TA/RA for slices are then received [Paragraphs 3, 11, 14-15, 23]).
Regarding claim 7, Ninglekhu further teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising not accessing the first network slice in a second TA when the first network slice is not indicated as being allowed in the second TA ([Paragraphs 23-24, 62, 64, 126, 128]).
Regarding claims 18-21, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 4-7.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ninglekhu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0052699) in view of Nord et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0274464).
Regarding claim 17, Ninglekhu teaches all the limitations recited in claim 13.
However, Ninglekhu does not explicitly mention: wherein determining that the UE is allowed to access the first network slice in the first TA but not the entire RA comprises: determining that an area covered by the first network slice is less than the entire RA; and configuring the first TA to match the area covered by the first network slice.
Nord teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication system, the following:
wherein determining that the UE is allowed to access the first network slice in the first TA but not the entire RA comprises: determining that an area covered by the first network slice is less than the entire RA; and configuring the first TA to match the area covered by the first network slice (upon determination that area covered by network slice, the TA is adjusted to the RA area [Paragraph 4]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Ninglekhu) by configuring TA to match RA area (as taught by Nord) for the purpose of supporting services for UE (Nord – Paragraph 3).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
March 7, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633