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
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are:
persuasive with respect to the amended features and limitations added to the independent claims 95 and 106 that neither Voyer nor Ishii teach or disclose the newly amended limitations, i.e., “receiving, from the cell, a tracking area identifiers list comprising one or more of a forbidden tracking area identifier or an allowable tracking area identifier; determining one or more allowable tracking area codes of the plurality of tracking area codes based on whether one or more of the plurality of tracking area codes is associated with the tracking area identifiers list; and selecting a tracking area code from one or more allowable tracking area codes.” Therefore, the rejection of claims 95-108 has been withdrawn and claims 95-108 are in condition for allowance.
not responsive with respect to the arguments that the Office Action has not addressed claim 109 because in fact, claim 109 has been properly included in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voyer et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0102826) and further in view of Ishii (Pub. No. US 2023/0308363), and has been addressed accordingly under the 103 rejection in details on page 7-10 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/12/2026.
Therefore, claims 109-114 are herein remaining rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voyer et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0102826) and further in view of Ishii (Pub. No. US 2023/0308363). The details of the rejection of claims 109-114 are shown in the followings that is the exact same rejection shown in the Non-Final Rejection dated 01/12/2026.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 109-114 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voyer et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0102826) and further in view of Ishii (Pub. No. US 2023/0308363).
Regarding claim 109. (Previously Presented) Voyer teaches a method (Voyer, the Abstract), comprising:
causing transmission, to at least one user equipment, of a plurality of tracking area codes associated with at least one network (Voyer, Fig. 1, pp [71]-[72]: a BTS, which manages a cell 15 comprising at least two tracking areas with identifiers, transmits to mobile terminals 30 messages comprising the identifiers of the tracking areas 70), wherein a respective tracking area code of the plurality of tracking area codes is associated with one or more network slices or one or more network slice groups.
Voyer, however, does not teach “the plurality of tracking area codes is associated with one or more network slices or one or more network slice groups.”
Ishii teaches “the plurality of tracking area codes is associated with one or more network slices or one or more network slice groups.” (Ishii, the Abstract: a wireless terminal comprises receiver circuitry configured to receive a message from a network management device wherein the message comprises one or more network slice coverage area configurations, which indicate a coverage area of a corresponding network slice; pp [233]: the wireless terminal stores the network slice band association information and the area scope indication(s) in its memory, e.g., network slice band association information (NSBAI) memory. In addition, the wireless terminal may store one or more area identities based on the area scope(s), wherein the one or more area identities to be stored may be: (1) the serving PLMN identity (if the area scope is “PLMN”), (2) the tracking area codes (TACs) of the current registration area (if the area scope is “Registration Area”), (3) the TACs included in the TAC list (if the area scope is “TACs”), or (4) the cell identities included in the Cell List (if the area scope is “Cells”; Figs. 25A-25B, pp [272]-[273]: a wireless terminal receives a message comprising one or more network slice coverage area configurations. The message may be a system information message (e.g. SIB1/SIBx), a NAS message (e.g. Registration Accept message) or a dedicated RRC message. Each of the network slice coverage area configurations may indicate a coverage area of a corresponding network slice. The each of the network slice coverage area configurations may comprise a list of area identities, such as a list of tracking area codes and a list of cell identities, in which the corresponding network slice is supported/available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Voyer by incorporating teachings of Ishii, a core network supports one or more network slices wherein each of the network slices provide a designated service within a public land mobile network (PLMN) for wireless terminals to access. The wireless terminals are configured to receive messages comprising one or more network slice coverage area configurations, which indicates a coverage area of a corresponding network slice, thus providing the wireless terminals select the available network slices associated with corresponding areas where the wireless terminals roam and camp on quickly and sufficiently to improve the robust service access at the most sufficient and effective fashion.
Regarding claim 110. (Previously Presented) Voyer, as modified by Ishii, teaches the method according to claim 109, further comprising:
causing transmission, to the at least one user equipment for at least one respective tracking area code of the plurality of tracking area codes, of one or more identifiers for the one or more network slices or the one or more network slice groups (Ishii, Fig. 22A, pp [237]).
Regarding claim 111. (Previously Presented) Voyer, as modified by Ishii, teaches the method according to claim 109, further comprising:
receiving, from a network, the plurality of tracking area codes associated with the at least one network, wherein the plurality of tracking area codes comprises a first tracking area code and one or more second tracking area codes (Voyer, pp [12]-[17]; and Ishii, pp [208]-[210]).
Regarding claim 112. (Currently Amended) Voyer, as modified by Ishii, teaches the method according to claim 111, wherein prioritization of the one or more second tracking area codes is based on an encoding order associated with the plurality of tracking area codes (Ishii, pp [89]-[90], [157]).
Regarding claim 113. (Currently Amended) Voyer, as modified by Ishii, teaches the method according to claim 109, wherein a first tracking area code of the plurality of tracking area codes is associated with a first information element of a system information block (Ishii, pp [160]-[161], [218]).
Regarding claim 114. (Currently Amended) Voyer, as modified by Ishii, teaches the method according to claim 113, wherein one or more second tracking area codes of the plurality of tracking area codes are associated with a second information element of the system information block that is different than the first information element (Ishii, pp [160]-[161], [218]).
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 HUY C HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1108. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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.
/HUY C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights