DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on June 6, 2024, having claims 2-7 (claim 1 was cancelled) and drawing figures 1-8.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title “User Equipment (UE)” broadly describes most apparatuses in the telecommunications field. A new title that specifically describes the claimed invention is required
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “in a case that” recited in lines 6 and 13 of claim 1 must be replaced with the word “when” to render the claim affirmative.
The phrase “in a case that” recited in lines 3 and 10 of claim 7 must be replaced with the word “when” to render the claim affirmative.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(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 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Surisetty et al. (US 2021/0329539 A1).
For claims 2 and 7, Surisetty discloses a User Equipment (UE) (Fig 4A, UE 400) comprising: transmission and reception circuitry (Fig 4A, communicator 440); controlling circuitry (Fig 4A, processor 430); and storage circuitry (Fig 4A, memory 420), wherein
in a case that the transmission and reception circuitry receives a first NSSAI (Network Slice Selection Assistance Information), the controlling circuitry is configured to store the first NSSAI in the storage circuitry ([0005] UE receives NSSAI from AMF), the first NSSAI contains one or more S-NSSAIs (Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information) not available in partial tracking area(s) in a registration area, each of the one or more S-NSSAIs is associated with one or more tracking areas where the S-NSSAI is not available ([0004-0005] the received NSSAI is part of a rejection message comprising one or more S-NSSAI not available in a registration area comprising one or more tracking areas), and
in a case that the UE is in the tracking area where the S-NSSAI is not available, the transmission and reception circuitry is configured not to transmit a registration request message including a requested NSSAI including the S-NSSAI ([0005] last 4 lines, the UE does NOT include the requested NSSAI in a registration message when the UE does not have an allowed S-NSSAI for the tracking area(s) where the S-NSSAI is not available).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surisetty et al. (US 2021/0329539 A1) in view of “Clarification of the timer T3526” 3GPP RSG-CT WG-1 Meeting #132-e, October 2021 (disclosed by applicant; hereinafter “NPL-1”).
For claim 3, Surisetty does not expressly disclose that the first NSSAI applies for 3GPP access only. NPL-1, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches that the allowed NSSAI or rejected NSSAI for a registration area is based on access type (3GPP or non-3GPP) (section 4.6.1 on page 3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the access method of NPL-1 in the communication network of Surisetty at the time of the invention to apply the NSSAI only to 3GPP access.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 4-6 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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 at 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 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights