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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 3/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 12, 25, 30, and 31 are amended.
Claims 4, 6, 10, and 32 are canceled.
Claims 33-36 are newly added.
Some informalities of the specification are amended.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 3/13/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 25-31, and 33-36 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 12, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qualcomm Incorporated (“Discussion of Mobility Registration Update to support NR Satellite Access”, SA WG2 Meeting #144e, S2-2102433, April 12-16, 2021, hereinafter Qualcomm).
Regarding claim 1:
Qualcomm teaches a Tracking Area (TA) abnormality processing method, which is performed by a network device (e.g., 5GC (e.g., AMF)), the method comprising:
receiving a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) request message (see, Qualcomm: Section 2, “a UE initiates a NAS procedure with a 5GC (e.g., a NAS Service Request)”); and
determining subsequent processing according to TA abnormality processing decision information, in response to determining, according to the NAS request message, that a TA abnormality that a TA where a User Equipment (UE) is currently located is outside a Registration Area (RA) of the UE occurs (see, Qualcomm: Section 2, “When a UE initiates a NAS procedure with a 5GC (e.g. a NAS Service Request), the NG-RAN will need to indicate the current TA in which the UE is located to the 5GC (e.g. AMF) as part of NGAP User Location Information (ULI). If the NG-RAN indicates the correct TA according to configured geographic definitions of TAs and the current geographic location of the UE, there may be problems for both hard TAC update and soft TAC update if the correct TA for the UE indicated in the ULI is not part of the RA. This may be seen as an anomaly (a “TA anomaly”) by the 5GC (e.g. AMF) because the UE is meant to perform a Registration update with the 5GC whenever it moves outside of the RA. As an example, if UE charging is based on the RA and the RA is not updated based on the current TA, there may be a charging error.”),
wherein the determining the subsequent processing according to the TA abnormality processing decision information comprises:
determining at least one of a response tolerance delay, a service delay requirement, or a UE location accuracy requirement of the NAS request message according to the TA abnormality processing decision information (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “the AMF receives a ULI from the NG-RAN indicating a TA for the UE which is not part of the current RA for the UE.”, wherein the AMT determines whether the UE is located in a TA which is part of the current RA for the UE or not based on the User Location Information (ULI).); and
determining the subsequent processing according to at least one of the response tolerance delay, the service delay requirement, or the UE location accuracy requirement (see, Qualcomm: Section 3 describes solutions to the TA anomaly, wherein determining subsequent processing according to TA abnormality processing decision information, such as ignoring the TA anomaly, immediate registration, deferred registration, etc. based on the ULI indicating a TA for the UE which is not part of the current RA for the UE (i.e., the UE location accuracy requirement).).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the subsequent processing comprises at least one of the following:
ignoring the TA abnormality, and responding to the NAS request message (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option A Ignore the Anomaly “The 5GC behaves as if the UE is still within the RA.”);
rejecting the NAS request message, and updating the RA by triggering the UE to initiate a registration update (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option B Immediate Registration “the AMF requests the UE to perform a Registration by (temporarily) rejecting the NAS procedure request with a new cause value indicating Registration. Once the Registration is complete, the UE can re-initiate the original NAS procedure if this is still needed.”); or
responding to the NAS request message, and updating the RA by triggering the UE to initiate the registration update after the response to the NAS request message is completed (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option C Deffered Registration “The AMF performs the requested NAS procedure if the new TA indicated in the ULI is allowed for the UE. The AMF also sends a UE Configuration Update Command to the UE to request the UE to perform a Registration. The UE Configuration Update Command can be sent as soon as the AMF discovers the UE is in a TA that is not part of the current RA or after the requested NAS procedure is complete.”).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the rejecting the NAS request message comprises: sending a rejection message for the NAS request message to the UE, wherein the rejection message comprises a rejection reason (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option B Immediate Registration “If the new TA indicated in the ULI is allowed, the AMF requests the UE to perform a Registration by (temporarily) rejecting the NAS procedure request with a new cause value indicating Registration. Once the Registration is complete, the UE can re-initiate the original NAS procedure if this is still needed.”), wherein the rejection reason indicating the TA abnormality is configured to update the RA of the UE by triggering the UE to initiate the registration update (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option B Immediate Registration “If the new TA indicated in the ULI is allowed, the AMF requests the UE to perform a Registration by (temporarily) rejecting the NAS procedure request with a new cause value indicating Registration. Once the Registration is complete, the UE can re-initiate the original NAS procedure if this is still needed.”).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the TA abnormality processing decision information comprises at least one of the following: device type information of the UE; a service type related to the NAS request message (e.g., emergency services); a data network name (DNN) related to the NAS request message; network slice information related to the NAS request message; network slice information contracted by the UE; or an operator operation strategy associated with the UE (see, Qualcomm: Section 2, “a UE initiates a NAS procedure with a 5GC (e.g. a NAS Service Request)”, “in order to support services like routing of an emergency call to a PSAP”, for example, which is a type of service related to the NAS request message, and Section 3, “Solutions to the TA Anomaly”, which are an operator operation strategy associated with the UE.); .
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the NAS request message comprises at least one of the following: a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request message; or a service request message (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “a UE initiates a NAS procedure (e.g. a Service Request or PDU Establishment Request)”).
Regarding claim 9:
Qualcomm teaches a Tracking Area (TA) abnormality processing method, which is performed by a User Equipment (UE), the method comprising: sending a registration update request based on triggering of a TA abnormality of the UE at a network side, wherein the registration update request is at least configured to update a Registration Area (RA) of the UE (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “The AMF also sends a UE Configuration Update Command to the UE to request the UE to perform a Registration. The UE Configuration Update Command can be sent as soon as the AMF discovers the UE is in a TA that is not part of the current RA”), wherein the TA abnormality comprises: a TA where the UE is currently located being located outside the RA of the UE (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “a UE initiates a NAS procedure (e.g. a Service Request or PDU Establishment Request) and the AMF receives a ULI from the NG-RAN indicating a TA for the UE which is not part of the current RA for the UE.”),
wherein the method further comprises: sending a Non-Access Stratum (NAS) request message wherein the NAS request message, added with location information of the UE while passing through an access network device, is configured to determine whether the UE has the TA abnormality (see, Qualcomm: Section 2, “When a UE initiates a NAS procedure with a 5GC (e.g. a NAS Service Request), the NG-RAN will need to indicate the current TA in which the UE is located to the 5GC (e.g. AMF) as part of NGAP User Location Information (ULI). If the NG-RAN indicates the correct TA according to configured geographic definitions of TAs and the current geographic location of the UE, there may be problems for both hard TAC update and soft TAC update if the correct TA for the UE indicated in the ULI is not part of the RA. This may be seen as an anomaly (a “TA anomaly”) by the 5GC (e.g. AMF) because the UE is meant to perform a Registration update with the 5GC whenever it moves outside of the RA.”),
wherein at least one of a response tolerance delay, a service delay requirement, or a UE location accuracy requirement of the NAS request message is configured to be used by the network side to determine subsequent processing when the TA abnormality occurs (see, Qualcomm: Section 3 describes solutions to the TA anomaly, wherein determining subsequent processing according to TA abnormality processing decision information, such as ignoring the TA anomaly, immediate registration, deferred registration, etc. based on the ULI indicating a TA for the UE which is not part of the current RA for the UE (i.e., the UE location accuracy requirement).).
Regarding claim 11:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 9.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein receiving a rejection message for the NAS request message; wherein the rejection message contains a rejection reason indicating the TA abnormality (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “the AMF requests the UE to perform a Registration by (temporarily) rejecting the NAS procedure request with a new cause value indicating Registration.”), and the UE sends the registration update request based on the rejection reason (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, “The AMF then returns the results of the implicit Registration update (e.g. provides new TAIs for a new RA) to the UE using a UE Configuration Update Command.”. Accordingly, the UE would then perform a Registration update to update the RA.).
Regarding claim 12:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 9.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein receiving a triggering indication, wherein the triggering indication is configured to trigger the UE to send the registration update request, and is sent after the NAS request message is responded (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option C Deferred Registration “The AMF performs the requested NAS procedure if the new TA indicated in the ULI is allowed for the UE. The AMF also sends a UE Configuration Update Command to the UE to request the UE to perform a Registration. The UE Configuration Update Command can be sent as soon as the AMF discovers the UE is in a TA that is not part of the current RA or after the requested NAS procedure is complete.”, wherein the UE Configuration Update Command is equivalent to the triggering indication of the instant application.).
Regarding claim 25:
Claim 25 is directed towards a communication device (e.g., 5GC (e.g., AMF)), comprising one or more processors (i.e., Processor of 5GC AMF, not shown but implied), a transceiver (i.e., Transceiver of 5GC AMF, not shown but implied), a memory (i.e., Memory of 5GC AMF, not shown but implied), and an executable program stored on the memory and runnable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are collectively configured to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 26:
Claim 26 is directed towards a non-transitory computer storage medium (i.e., Memory of 5GC AMF, not shown but implied), storing an executable program; when executed by a processor (i.e., Processor of 5GC AMF, not shown but implied), the executable program causes the processor to implement the method according to claim 1. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 27:
Claim 27 is directed towards a communication device (e.g., UE), comprising one or more processors (i.e., Processor of UE, not shown but implied), a transceiver (i.e., Transceiver of UE, not shown but implied), a memory (i.e., Memory of UE, not shown but implied), and an executable program stored on the memory and runnable by the processor, wherein the one or more processors are collectively configured to perform the method according to claim 9 when executing the executable program. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 28:
Claim 28 is directed towards a non-transitory computer storage medium (i.e., Memory of UE, not shown but implied), storing an executable program; when executed by a processor (i.e., Processor of UE, not shown but implied), the executable program causes the processor to implement the method according to claim 9. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 29:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Qualcomm further teaches wherein the rejection reason indicates the TA abnormality (see, Qualcomm: Section 3, Option B Immediate Registration “the AMF requests the UE to perform a Registration by (temporarily) rejecting the NAS procedure request with a new cause value indicating Registration.”; “Option B has a small NAS signaling impact to define a new cause value for the NAS reject message sent for the originally requested NAS procedure.”, wherein the new cause value indicates a TA anomaly.).
Regarding claim 30:
Claim 30 is directed towards the communication device according to claim 25 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 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.
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.
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 5 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm in view of Watfa et al. (US 2020/0404734 A1, hereinafter Watfa).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Qualcomm teaches all limitations in claim 2.
Qualcomm does not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises at least one of the following steps: stopping the triggering of the registration update in response to determining that a registration update request from the UE is received in the process of triggering the RA update of the UE; or stopping the triggering of the registration update in response to determining that a time at which the RA update of the UE is triggered is an update time of a registration update cycle of the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Watfa teaches wherein stopping the triggering of the registration update in response to determining that a registration update request from the UE is received in the process of triggering the RA update of the UE; or stopping the triggering of the registration update in response to determining that a time at which the RA update of the UE is triggered is an update time of a registration update cycle of the UE (see, Watfa: para. [0140], “When the AMF sends a paging message, it may start a timer to guard the time during which a response (i.e., a service request) is expected from the WTRU. In the example described above, the reception of the registration request message from the WTRU may cause the AMF to stop the timer. Alternatively, reception of the service request message with the allowed PDU session IE may cause the AMF to stop the timer. If there is no allowed PDU session IE in the registration update message, the AMF may check if a PDU status IE is included. If the PDU status IE includes PDU IDs corresponding to the non-3GPP AT for which the AMF triggered the paging (e.g., due to pending DL data associated with the PDU IDs), the AMF may use this as the trigger to stop the timer. The AMF may consider the paging procedure as successful.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Qualcomm in combination of the teachings of Watfa to stop triggering the RA update of the UE in order for AMF to save processing resource that would be otherwise required by unnecessary update signaling when a registration request message from the WTRU is received (see, Watfa: para. [0140]).
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is directed towards the communication device according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471