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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP JP 2021-012784, filed on January 29, 2021, has been filed in Application No. 18/273,993, filed on July 25th, 2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It is also noted that the present application is a 371 National Phase Patent Application of PCT/JP2022/002741, for which the 371(c) filing date is January 26th, 2022.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues (page 3-4, 04/07/2026):
“By contrast, in the cited section, 3GPP merely describes that, when a UE supports simultaneous usage incompatibility support, such support is included in a Registration Request. In other words, 3GPP does NOT describe which information element is used when transmitting the simultaneous usage incompatibility support in the Registration Request.”
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees:
Applicant argues 3GPP does not describe the “information element” is used for transmitting the simultaneous usage incompatibility support in the registration request, however, nowhere in claim 1 does recite “information element”. To be more specific, claim 1, lines 4-6, recite “the controller includes first control information in 5G Mobility Management (5GMM) capability information in a case that the UE supports a function constraining simultaneous registration of network slices, the first control information indicating the function is supported,” and with broadest reasonable interpretation, 5GMM can refer to a UE messaging to an AMF, see NINGLEKHUUS paragraph 13, and 3GPP page 138, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:1 wherein the UE is message an indicator to the AMF of “a network slice incompatibility support indication”. Therefore, as long as the UE first message is being sent to an AMF then the message is a 5GMM and the UE is sending first control information as described in 3GPP page 138.
Applicant Further Argues (page 4, 04/07/2026):
“Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the Registration Request includes various information elements, and what type of information element is selected to transmit which information has a significant impact on the behavior of the UE and the AMF including in the Registration Procedure.
Therefore, even assuming, arguendo, that 3GPP did describe information representing the simultaneous usage incompatibility support in the Registration Request, it would have not been obvious to those skilled in the art to include such simultaneous usage incompatibility support in the 5GMM capability information when there is no such teaching in the 3GPP.”
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees:
Applicant argues because a limitation or element is not disclosed in the 3GPP, it cannot be combined. However, that is not true, NINGLEKHUUS and 3GPP can be combined for various reasons, for instance, the method in 3GPP describes of UE sending a network slice incompatibility support to the AMF in order to avoid futile attempts and reduce the amount of network rejections as the AMF will provide correct compatibility as described in 3GPP and thus is a benefit because it would reduce the signaling being performed between UE and AMF.
Applicant Further Argues (page 6):
“Specifically, the Office Action seems to have equated the "network slices incompatibility attribute value," as recited in 3GPP, to the "second identification information," as recited in unamended claim 5, and to have equated the "allowed NSSAI list," as recited in 3GPP, to the "configured NSSAI," as recited in unamended claim 5.
However, at least in the cited section, 3GPP does NOT describe that both "the network slices incompatibility attribute value" and "the allowed NSSAI list" are included in the Registration Accept message. Moreover, it is well-known in the art that the "configured NSSAI" and the "allowed NSSAI list" are different types of information, and thus, it is not obvious to those skilled in the art to consider them as being the same.”
Examiner Respectfully disagrees:
Examiner relied on NINGLEKHUUS to teach the NSSAI is in the Registration Accept message see paragraph 0267, Fig.11:5, and step 5 of Fig.11 shows the registration accept message can also have an indicator for each S-NSSAI. 3GPP discloses of second control information in the Registration Accept message see page 138 Fig.6.27.3.1-1:5, and therefore in combination teach the information of NSSAI and second control information are in fact in the same message.
Furthermore, 3GPP page 138 step 5 discloses “When confirming the UE registration procedure, if the UE indicated its support for network slices incompatibility in the Registration Request message in step 1, then the AMF can include in the Registration Accept message the network slices incompatibility attribute value (e.g. 0 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice, 1 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SST value, 2 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SD value, 3 - the network slice cannot be used simultaneously with another network slice) per each S-NSSAI from the allowed NSSAI list. The AMF may adjust the value of the incompatibility attribute based on the operator policy or configuration.” As disclosed in 3GPP, each of the S-NSSAI from the NSSAI list has an indication of which slices are compatible.
Applicant Further Argues (page 6):
“Furthermore, 3GPP merely describes that "the network slices incompatibility attribute value" is assigned to the allowed NSSAI and transmitted to the UE, and, after that, when the UE establishes a PDU session, the UE checks simultaneous usage incompatibility based on the "network slices incompatibility attribute value".
In summary, even assuming, arguendo, that the "network slices incompatibility attribute value" could be equated to the "second identification information", 3GPP does NOT describe that the "network slices incompatibility attribute value" is associated with an S-NSSAI included in the configured NSSAI.”
Examiner Answer:
As explained before, 3GPP page 138 step 5 discloses “When confirming the UE registration procedure, if the UE indicated its support for network slices incompatibility in the Registration Request message in step 1, then the AMF can include in the Registration Accept message the network slices incompatibility attribute value (e.g. 0 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice, 1 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SST value, 2 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SD value, 3 - the network slice cannot be used simultaneously with another network slice) per each S-NSSAI from the allowed NSSAI list. Therefore, the “network slices incompatibility attribute value” is associated with S-NSSAI from the allowed NSSAI list, as the AMF is indicating which S-NSSAI from the NSSAI list of slices that are not compatible with each other.
Examiner notes claim 6 is also rejected based on features similar to those recited in claim 4. See examiner answer to claim 4 arguments in this office action page 2-4. Examiner further added pertinent art in the conclusion of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
`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 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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NINGLEKHU (US 20230052699 A1) in view of 3GPP (“3GPP TR 23.700-40 V1.2.0 30 November 2020”) (IDS, 07/25/2023).
Regarding Claim 4, NINGLEKHUUS discloses A User Equipment (UE) (paragraph [0396], Fig.8B:112, " a WTRU 102." (i.e., Fig.8B shows the component of a UE comprising circuitry.)) comprising:
transmission and reception circuitry (paragraph [0396], Fig.8B:122, " a transmit/receive element 122,"); and
a controller (paragraph [0396], Fig.8B:118, "a processor 118,"),
wherein the controller includes (paragraph [0263], Fig.11, "The UE includes the Default Configured NSSAI Indication if the UE is using a Default Configured NSSAI, as defined in TS 23.501. UE may indicate using a SSAI in the registration message that it supports the SSAC Indicator. SSI maybe a single bit indication, or the UE may indicate its support" and paragraph [0267], Fig.11, "If the UE did not indicate its support for SSAC in the Registration Request message," (i.e., Before the UE sends a registration message the UE configures an indication of a Simultaneous Slice Access Capability (SSAC) to indicate AMF that the UE supports SSAC and “first information” being the single bit indication or the UE may indicate its support. Therefore, setting the bit to indicate to the AMF of the support of SSAC.),
in a case that the UE supports a function (paragraph [0013], “A UE may be allowed to register with multiple S-NSSAIs, wherein the UE may be restricted from having simultaneous Packet Data. Unit (PDU) sessions with two or more slices based on the configured Simultaneous Slice Access Policies (SSAP). For example, an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) may reject a PDU Session Establishment Request with a cause code which details that Slice B is not accessible with slice A.” and paragraph [0259], "When a UE registers with the network, it may indicate to the network whether it supports (e.g., understands) the SSAC Indicator using a SSAC Support Indicator (SSD." and paragraph [0267], “Optionally, the SSAC Indicator may also be included for each S-NSSAI in the Allowed NSSAI, Mapping of Allowed NSSAI, Mapping of Configured NSSAI, The absence of an SSAC Indicator may serve as a sign that there are no restrictions associated with the S-NSSAI in terms of simultaneous use with other network slices. Each rejected S-NSSAI may be associated with a cause value. The AMF may set the cause value such that it indicates to the UE that the S-NSSAI was rejected because the SSAC configuration that is associated with the S-NSSAI is not compatible with one of the S-NSSAI's in the allowed S-NSSAI.” (i.e., UE uses SSD to indicate to indicate the UE supports SSAC.)),
the first control information indicating the function is supported (between par.256 and par.257, "Restricting Simultaneous Network Slice Access During Registration", and paragraph [0257], "A UE is configured with one or more Configured NSSAI's; one of the Configured NSSAI's may be a default NSSAI. For each S-NSSAI in a Configured NSSAI, the configuration may include a Simultaneous Slice Access Capability (SSAC) indicator." (i.e., The UE includes an indicator of SSAC being supported.)),
and the transmission and reception circuitry transmits a registration request message including the 5GMM capability information (paragraph [0263], Fig.11, "in Step 1, the UE sends a registration request to the network…UE may indicate using a SSAI in the registration message that it supports the SSAC Indicator. SSI maybe a single bit indication, or the UE may indicate its support by including its Configured SSAC indicator for each S-NSSAI in the Requested NSSAI." (i.e., UE sending a registration request to the network with SSAC indicator.)).
However, does not explicitly disclose the controller includes first control information 5G Mobility Management (5GMM) capability information in a case that the UE supports a function constraining simultaneous registration of network slices.
3GPP discloses the controller includes first control information 5G Mobility Management (5GMM) capability information in a case that the UE supports a function constraining simultaneous registration of network slices (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:1, “1) The UE requests registration with the network and if the UE supports the network slices simultaneous usage incompatibility feature, the UE also includes in the Registrations Request message a network slice incompatibility support indication.” and “2) If the AMF supports the network slices simultaneous usage incompatibility feature, the AMF includes the network slices incompatibility support indication to the UDM when retrieving UE's subscription information.”),
the first control information being information indicating the function is supported (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:1, “1) The UE requests registration with the network and if the UE supports the network slices simultaneous usage incompatibility feature, the UE also includes in the Registrations Request message a network slice incompatibility support indication.” (i.e., examiner points to the Figure 6.27.3.1-1:1 wherein UE is sending the first information to the AMF as disclosed as “1) Registration Request (network slice incompatibility support indication)”)),
and the transmission and reception circuitry transmit a registration request message including the 5GMM capability information (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:1, “1) The UE requests registration with the network and if the UE supports the network slices simultaneous usage incompatibility feature, the UE also includes in the Registrations Request message a network slice incompatibility support indication.” (i.e., Figure 6.27.3.1-1:1 discloses the transmission of registration message including the support of a network slice incompatibility.)).
NINGLEKHU in view of 3GPP are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Affiliation to network, e.g. registration; Terminating affiliation with the network, e.g. de-registration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified NINGLEKHU to implement the method of 3GPP wherein the UE sent network slice incompatibility support indication to the AMF in order to avoid futile attempts and network rejections when registering for incompatible S-NSSAIs, and allowing the AMF to provide correct compatibility information and thus leads to reduction in signaling for multiple S-NSSAIs that are incompatible with each other (3GPP, page 137, page 139, 6.27.3.2, Figure 6.27.3.2-1:4).
Regarding Claim 5, NINGLEKHUUS discloses all the limitation of claim 4.
NINGLEKHUUS further discloses further comprising storage (paragraph [0396], "non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132," (i.e., The UE in Fig.11 has storage.)),
wherein the transmission and reception circuitry receives (paragraph [0267], Fig.11:5, " In the Registration Accept message AMF may include the Allowed NSSAI…" (i.e., The registration accept message includes NSSAI)),
and the controller determines a requested NSSAI based on the second control information (paragraph [0232], " In step 11, the UE may choose to use the Allowed NSSAI or send a Registration Update request with a new Requested NSSAI that is formed based on the information that was provided in the Registration Accept message" (i.e., This is from a different figure but this is to show the UE determines to use the allowed NSSAI or request a new NSSAI and that information is received from the AMF.)).
3GPP discloses wherein the transmission and reception circuitry receives (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:5, “5) When confirming the UE registration procedure, if the UE indicated its support for network slices incompatibility in the Registration Request message in step 1, then the AMF can include in the Registration Accept message the network slices incompatibility attribute value (e.g. 0 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice, 1 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SST value, 2 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SD value, 3 - the network slice cannot be used simultaneously with another network slice) per each S-NSSAI from the allowed NSSAI list. The AMF may adjust the value of the incompatibility attribute based on the operator policy or configuration.” (i.e., As disclosed in Figure 6.27.3.1-1:5 is NSSAI list with second information.)),
the second control information being information constraining which Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI)s are simultaneously providable (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:5, “…(e.g. 0 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice, 1 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SST value, 2 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SD value, 3 - the network slice cannot be used simultaneously with another network slice) per each S-NSSAI from the allowed NSSAI list.” (i.e., Each S-NSSAI has a bit indicating which S-NSSAI can be used simultaneously or cannot be used simultaneously.)),
the second control information is associated with the S-NSSAIs in the configured NSSAI (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:5, “5) When confirming the UE registration procedure, if the UE indicated its support for network slices incompatibility in the Registration Request message in step 1, then the AMF can include in the Registration Accept message the network slices incompatibility attribute value (e.g. 0 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice, 1 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SST value, 2 - the network slice can be used simultaneously with any network slice with same SD value, 3 - the network slice cannot be used simultaneously with another network slice) per each S-NSSAI from the allowed NSSAI list.” (i.e., The attribute value is related associated with S-NSSAI.)),
the controller stores the second control information in the storage (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:6, “6) The UE behavior after receiving network slices incompatibility attributes per allowed S-NSSAI - The UE shall not attempt to establish or request user resources establishment for simultaneous PDU sessions on network slices that are identified as incompatible based on the received network slices incompatibility attributes. For example, if the UE has already established a PDU Session(s) on one or more network slices and the UE wants to establish another PDU Sessions on an additional network slice, the UE shall first check for simultaneous usage incompatibility, based on the received network slices incompatibility attributes, between the additional network slice and each of the network slices on which there is an already establish PDU Session and vice-versa. The UE may also check with the URSP rules whether the network slice incompatibility can be avoided by selecting another network slice for the new PDU Session,” (i.e., Figure 6.27.3.1-1:6 implies the UE is storing the second control information in the storage since it disclosed in step 6 and underlined by the examiner, as in using the second information at another time.)).
and the controller determines a requested NSSAI based on the second control information (page 138, 6.27.3.1, Figure 6.27.3.1-1:6, “6) The UE behavior after receiving network slices incompatibility attributes per allowed S-NSSAI - The UE shall not attempt to establish or request user resources establishment for simultaneous PDU sessions on network slices that are identified as incompatible based on the received network slices incompatibility attributes. For example, if the UE has already established a PDU Session(s) on one or more network slices and the UE wants to establish another PDU Sessions on an additional network slice, the UE shall first check for simultaneous usage incompatibility, based on the received network slices incompatibility attributes,” (i.e., using the second information the UE receives the UE will establish another PDU Session and check if any of the slices are incompatible. NINGLEKHUUS par.13 and par.267 disclose register for multiple S-NSSAIs as in NSSAI.)).
Regarding Claim 6, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant disclosure.
3GPP TS 24.501 V17.1.0 (IDS, 745 page, 07/25/2023) page 236 discloses If the UE supports a feature, then the UE will indicate a bit in the 5GMM capability IE of the registration request message
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 Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights