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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (1) The 1st sentence uses the phrase “The present disclosure relates to ..”, which can be implied. (2) The 2nd sentence repeats information in the title.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 (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 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 - 4, 8, 10 - 11, 14, 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motegi et al. (US 20030050078 A1; which has been provided in the International Search Report)
Regarding claim 1, Motegi discloses a method of allocating paging packet IDs (Fig., [0071]; Figs. 5 & 6), comprising:
receiving, by a terminal device, first information from a core network device, wherein the first information comprises N paging packet IDs allocated for a paging area list registered by the terminal device in a core network (
[0027] discloses “ …the base station having a plurality of paging area identifiers respectively corresponding to the first to n-th location registration area groups, the base station periodically broadcasting the paging area identifiers and a control signal in synchronization with a paging interval of each mobile station.”; wherein the paging area list correspond to the paging area identifiers and the core network device is the base station),
Fig. 5; [0073] discloses “FIG. 5 is a view showing an example of configuration of paging area identifier. As shown in FIG. 5, a paging area identifier is constituted by respective location registration area group identifiers (AIC, G1, G2, G3 in the order of correspondence) corresponding to the location registration area groups A, B, C, D. By using the identifier broadcast section 2D (FIG. 16), each base station broadcasts the location registration area group identifier to the mobile station periodically receiving signals“; wherein the 1st information is what is disclosed in Fig. 5 and the N paging packet IDs are those corresponding to AIC, G1, G2, G3..);
Fig. 6; [0074] gives an example;
the paging area list comprises M paging area identities, and both M and N are positive integers ([0027], as above; M identities are the those in each time instant in Fig. 6, e.g. AIC, G1, G2 G3 , next time interval has only G3 etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Motegi discloses after the receiving, by the terminal device, first information from a core network device, comprising: receiving, by the terminal device, second information form the core network device, wherein the second information is configured to update the paging packet IDs (Fig. 11 discloses checking if current identifier is different from the broadcasted identifier in step R1 and updates it if necessary; wherein the receiving the 2nd information is receiving the broadcasted information; Fig. 13; [0087] – [0088] discloses updating information when the mobile device moves from 131 to cell 142).
Regarding claim 4, Motegi discloses the second information is configured to: release one or more paging packet ID which has been allocated to one or more paging area identity; and/or modifying the one or more paging packet ID which has been allocated to the one or more paging area identity (as in claim 3, Fig. 11 and [0088] disclose updating information; wherein modifying would be updating).
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 8 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory, processor are inherent in a mobile terminal that performs the method of claim 1.
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claims 1, 8. Claim 14 recites operations as seen from the core network device (base station) side.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
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.
Claims 2, 5 - 7, 9, 12 - 13, 15, 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motegi et al. (US 20030050078 A1; which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Tiwari et al. (US 20240031925 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Motegi does not disclose wherein the receiving, by a terminal device, first information from a core network device, comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a registration accept message from the core network device, wherein the registration accept message comprises the first information.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Tiwari discloses wherein the receiving, by a terminal device, first information from a core network device, comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a registration accept message from the core network device, wherein the registration accept message comprises the first information (Fig. 3, step 3; [0042] discloses “The AMF, to the UE, sends a REGISTRATION ACCEPT message containing Pending NSSAI including the S-NSSAI.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the registration accept message, as taught by Tiwari, in the system of Motegi because this would allow the UE to complete the registration and receive configuration data.
Regarding claim 5, Motegi does not disclose wherein the receiving, by the terminal device, second information form the core network device, comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a Non Access Stratum NAS message from the core network device, wherein the NAS message comprises the second information.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Tiwari discloses wherein the receiving, by the terminal device, second information form the core network device, comprises: receiving, by the terminal device, a Non Access Stratum NAS message from the core network device, wherein the NAS message comprises the second information ([0014] discloses “FIG. 3 is a signaling diagram illustrating an embodiment of sending CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND message containing the Allowed NSSAI when a N1 NAS signaling connection is established after a radio link failure.”; [0129] discloses “(3-1) Action to be taken by the AMF when N1 NAS signaling connection has been established during the period 3: The AMF initiates the generic UE configuration update procedure.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the NAS message, as taught by Tiwari, in the system of Motegi because one advantage of NAS signaling improved security.
Regarding claim 6, Motegi does not disclose the NAS message is a configuration update command message.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Tiwari discloses the NAS message is a configuration update command message ([0014] discloses “FIG. 3 is a signaling diagram illustrating an embodiment of sending CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND message containing the Allowed NSSAI when a N1 NAS signaling connection is established after a radio link failure.”; [0129] discloses “(3-1) Action to be taken by the AMF when N1 NAS signaling connection has been established during the period 3: The AMF initiates the generic UE configuration update procedure.” i.e. update is done using NAS signaling).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the NAS message, as taught by Tiwari, in the system of Motegi because one advantage of NAS signaling improved security.
Regarding claim 7, Motegi does not disclose the core network device is an Access and Mobility Management Function AMF entity.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Tiwari discloses the core network device is an Access and Mobility Management Function AMF entity (Fig. 1 discloses AMF that communicates with the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the AMF, as taught by Tiwari, in the system of Motegi because an AMF is optimized to handle registration, authentication, security, and mobility management.
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claims 5 and 6.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to allocating paging packet IDs:
Tiwari et al. (US 20230051617 A1) discloses procedure to update the parameters related to unified access control.
Ianev et al. (US 20220039046 A1) discloses uses of Registration Accept message ([0046]).
Li et al. (US 20130344903 A1) discloses method for allocating identification, method for paging group, and communication device.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632