CTNF 18/724,908 CTNF 87785 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 22, 24, 29, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 22 recites “a second RA” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a second registration area, RA” in line 4. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 24 recites “a slice group and a TA” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a slice group and tracking area, TA” in claim 19 line 7. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 24 recites “a slice group” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a slice group” in claim 19 line 7. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 29 recites “a slice configuration update to a second network node” in line 3. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a slice configuration update to a second network node” in line 2. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 29 recites “at least one SGM configuration” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “the SGM configuration” in claim 26. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 36 recites “a second RA” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a second registration area, RA” in line 4. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 38 recites “a slice group and a TA” in line 4. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a slice group and tracking area, TA” in claim 34 line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim 38 recites “a slice group” in line 5. It is unclear whether or not it is referring to “a slice group” in claim 34 line 3. For the purpose of examination, examiner will interpret the claim as best understood. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 19-21, 23-30, 32-35, and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Seidel et al. (WO 2021/239899 A1, hereinafter “Seidel”) . Regarding claims 19 and 34 , Seidel discloses A user device [ see Fig. 5, page 1, lines 7-10, page 15, lines 5-13; a UE ], comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor [ see Fig. 34, pages 94-96; processor and memory including computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor ], cause the apparatus at least to: obtain a slice group mapping, SGM, configuration, wherein the SGM configuration indicates a mapping between a slice group and tracking area, TA; and perform at least one of cell reselection or random access operation, at least partially based on the obtained slice group mapping configuration [ see page 10, lines 14-35; “Fig. 3 illustrates an example for mapping of PRACH resources to network slice IDs. Fig. 3 illustrates an example of a network that may configure N slices, like hundreds of slices, and a N:1 mapping of slices to RACH resources may be implemented ... In case the mapping of the slice-specific RACH resource configuration to the network slices is not unique (as in Fig. 3), also referred to as a 1-to-many mapping, the UE may select from a group of network slices, like slices 1-3 or slices 4 to N in Fig. 3, associated with a slice-specific RACH resource configuration, like PRACH, or PRACH j in Fig. 3, the actual slice to be used based on one or more of the following:”; see page 22, lines 5-15; In accordance with embodiments of the first aspect … the UE is to receive, via the source base station’s RRC signaling, from the target base station one or more of the slice specific RACH resource configurations and/or one or more physical RACH resources within a slice specific RACH resource configuration provided by the target base station to be used when connecting to the target base station with a RACH procedure. In accordance with embodiments of the first aspect, within a certain area, like a tracking area, TA, the base stations provide the same slice specific RACH resource configurations for the one or more slices, and …” ]. Regarding claims 20 and 35 , Seidel discloses wherein the obtain, by the user device, a SGM configuration comprises at least one of: obtain the SGM configuration from core network; or obtain the SGM configuration from radio access network [ see page 31, lines 20-26; “A RACH resource configuration policy may be stored in the core network, e.g. 5GC, and the UE may be configured or preconfigured with a default policy that may be updated based on a certain criterion or based on a request by the UE. For example, the UE may receive an updated or secondary slice specific RACH resource configuration policy from another entity of the wireless communication network, like a gNB or a sidelink UE or a relay or an entity of the 5GC (5G core network), e.g. by the access and mobility management function (AMF)"; see page 32, lines 1-4; "In accordance with embodiments, the slice-specific UE RACH resource configuration selection function may rely on information provided by the non-access stratum, NAS. The NAS mobility management, NAS-MM, function may communicate with the access mobility management function in the 5G core network, 5GC” ]. Regarding claim 21 , Seidel discloses wherein the obtain the SGM configuration from core network comprises obtain the SGM configuration in non-access stratum (NAS) signaling and/or message; and wherein the obtain the SGM configuration from radio access network comprises obtain the SGM configuration in a radio resource control (RRC) signaling and/or message [ see page 31, lines 20-26; “A RACH resource configuration policy may be stored in the core network, e.g. 5GC, and the UE may be configured or preconfigured with a default policy that may be updated based on a certain criterion or based on a request by the UE. For example, the UE may receive an updated or secondary slice specific RACH resource configuration policy from another entity of the wireless communication network, like a gNB or a sidelink UE or a relay or an entity of the 5GC (5G core network), e.g. by the access and mobility management function (AMF)"; see page 32, lines 1-4; "In accordance with embodiments, the slice-specific UE RACH resource configuration selection function may rely on information provided by the non-access stratum, NAS. The NAS mobility management, NAS-MM, function may communicate with the access mobility management function in the 5G core network, 5GC” ]. Regarding claims 23 and 37 , Seidel discloses wherein the user device is further caused to: indicate invalid SGM to a network in an uplink signaling and/or message, wherein the uplink signaling and/or message comprises message 3, MSG3 or MSG5 or MSG1 of a random access channel, RACH or RRC signaling [ see page 36, lines 18-25; “RACH Procedure Failure - Embodiments of the first aspect of the present invention handle failures of a RACH procedure following the selection of a slice-specific RACH resource configuration and selection of the actual RACH resources from the slice-specific configuration to be used for the RACH procedure. In case the access procedure on the RACH resource selected from the determined slice-specific RACH resource configuration fails, the UE may repeat the random- access using RACH resources of a configured or preconfigured fallback RACH resource configuration, for example, provided by a SIB-slice"; see page 70, lines 12-26; “Modify an ongoing RACH procedure - In accordance with embodiments, to modify the ongoing RACH procedure, the UE may modify a certain message transmitted by the UE during the ongoing RACH procedure by including into the certain message, in addition to an indication of the first slice, an indication of the second slice so as to allow a base station to provide in response to the certain message parameters for a configuration of the first and second slices. The UE may alter the content of Msg3 if not already transmitted to the gNB. The Msg3 content may contain a MAC CE, which informs the gNB about the additional slice, e.g. slice#2, that triggered a RACH procedure, thus that the gNB may decide to alter its Msg4 using a different C-RNTI for the UE to be used for communication for slice#2” ]. Regarding claims 24 and 38 , Seidel discloses wherein the slice group mapping configuration comprises at least one of: a set of slice groups mapping to a set of TAs, one or more mappings between a slice group and a TA, or one or more mappings between a physical cell identifier, PCI, and a slice group [ see page 35, lines 23-30; “ The mapping of access categories, access identities and access root causes to slice- specific RACH resource configurations provides for a flexible scheme which goes together with a signaling overhead as a mapping table needs to be configured in the gNB and signaled to the UE. In accordance with embodiments, the mapping table may be preconfigured or partly preconfigured in the UE, for example for emergency systems, such that a default behavior is specified with less or no signaling involved. The information may also be stored within the UE while moving through the network and only the differences or deltas needs to be updated by signaling to the respective UE” ]. Regarding claim 25 , Seidel discloses wherein the slice group mapping further comprises at least one slice to slice group mapping [ see page 10, lines 28-35; “This mapping may also be dynamic, for example, during an emergency case, the network may be reconfigured to support a new slice-specific RACH resource configuration that may be mapped to one or more slices. In case the mapping of the slice-specific RACH resource configuration to the network slices is not unique (as in Fig. 3), also referred to as a 1-to-many mapping , the UE may select from a group of network slices, like slices 1-3 or slices 4 to N in Fig. 3, associated with a slice-specific RACH resource configuration, like PRACH, or PRACH j in Fig. 3, the actual slice to be used based on one or more of the following:” ]. Regarding claim 26 , Seidel discloses A first network node [ see Fig. 5, 34, page 1, lines 7-10, page 15, lines 5-13; a base station ], comprising: at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor [ see Fig. 34, pages 94-96; processor and memory including computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the processor ], cause the first network node at least to: obtain a slice group mapping, SGM, configuration, wherein the SGM configuration indicates a mapping between a slice group and tracking area, TA; provide the SGM configuration to a user device [ see page 10, lines 14-35; “Fig. 3 illustrates an example for mapping of PRACH resources to network slice IDs. Fig. 3 illustrates an example of a network that may configure N slices, like hundreds of slices, and a N:1 mapping of slices to RACH resources may be implemented ... In case the mapping of the slice-specific RACH resource configuration to the network slices is not unique (as in Fig. 3), also referred to as a 1-to-many mapping, the UE may select from a group of network slices, like slices 1-3 or slices 4 to N in Fig. 3, associated with a slice-specific RACH resource configuration, like PRACH, or PRACH j in Fig. 3, the actual slice to be used based on one or more of the following:”; see page 22, lines 5-15; In accordance with embodiments of the first aspect … the UE is to receive, via the source base station’s RRC signaling, from the target base station one or more of the slice specific RACH resource configurations and/or one or more physical RACH resources within a slice specific RACH resource configuration provided by the target base station to be used when connecting to the target base station with a RACH procedure. In accordance with embodiments of the first aspect, within a certain area, like a tracking area, TA, the base stations provide the same slice specific RACH resource configurations for the one or more slices, and …” ]. Regarding claim 27 , Seidel discloses wherein the SGM configuration comprises at least one of: a set of slice groups mapping to a set of TAs, one or more mappings between a slice group and a TA, or one or more mappings between a physical cell identifier, PCI, and a slice group [ see page 35, lines 23-30; “The mapping of access categories, access identities and access root causes to slice- specific RACH resource configurations provides for a flexible scheme which goes together with a signaling overhead as a mapping table needs to be configured in the gNB and signaled to the UE. In accordance with embodiments, the mapping table may be preconfigured or partly preconfigured in the UE, for example for emergency systems, such that a default behavior is specified with less or no signaling involved. The information may also be stored within the UE while moving through the network and only the differences or deltas needs to be updated by signaling to the respective UE” ]. Regarding claim 28 , Seidel discloses wherein the slice group mapping further comprises at least one slice to slice group mapping [ see page 10, lines 28-35; “This mapping may also be dynamic, for example, during an emergency case, the network may be reconfigured to support a new slice-specific RACH resource configuration that may be mapped to one or more slices. In case the mapping of the slice-specific RACH resource configuration to the network slices is not unique (as in Fig. 3), also referred to as a 1-to-many mapping , the UE may select from a group of network slices, like slices 1-3 or slices 4 to N in Fig. 3, associated with a slice-specific RACH resource configuration, like PRACH, or PRACH j in Fig. 3, the actual slice to be used based on one or more of the following:” ]. Regarding claim 29 , Seidel discloses wherein the first network node is further caused to: transmit a slice configuration update to a second network node; or receive a slice configuration update from a second network node; wherein the slice configuration update comprises at least one SGM configuration [ see page 31, lines 20-26 ; “A RACH resource configuration policy may be stored in the core network, e.g. 5GC, and the UE may be configured or preconfigured with a default policy that may be updated based on a certain criterion or based on a request by the UE. For example, the UE may receive an updated or secondary slice specific RACH resource configuration policy from another entity of the wireless communication network, like a gNB or a sidelink UE or a relay or an entity of the 5GC (5G core network), e.g. by the access and mobility management function (AMF)"; see page 32, lines 1-4 ; "In accordance with embodiments, the slice-specific UE RACH resource configuration selection function may rely on information provided by the non-access stratum, NAS. The NAS mobility management, NAS-MM, function may communicate with the access mobility management function in the 5G core network, 5GC” ]. Regarding claim 30 , Seidel discloses wherein the first network node is further caused to determine the SGM configuration [ see page 10, lines 14-35; “Fig. 3 illustrates an example for mapping of PRACH resources to network slice IDs. Fig. 3 illustrates an example of a network that may configure N slices, like hundreds of slices, and a N:1 mapping of slices to RACH resources may be implemented ... In case the mapping of the slice-specific RACH resource configuration to the network slices is not unique (as in Fig. 3), also referred to as a 1-to-many mapping, the UE may select from a group of network slices, like slices 1-3 or slices 4 to N in Fig. 3, associated with a slice-specific RACH resource configuration, like PRACH, or PRACH j in Fig. 3, the actual slice to be used based on one or more of the following:”; see page 22, lines 5-15; In accordance with embodiments of the first aspect … the UE is to receive, via the source base station’s RRC signaling, from the target base station one or more of the slice specific RACH resource configurations and/or one or more physical RACH resources within a slice specific RACH resource configuration provided by the target base station to be used when connecting to the target base station with a RACH procedure. In accordance with embodiments of the first aspect, within a certain area, like a tracking area, TA, the base stations provide the same slice specific RACH resource configurations for the one or more slices, and …” ]. Regarding claim 32 , Seidel discloses wherein the first network node is further caused to perform at least one of: obtain an assistant information, wherein the assistant information indicates the user device having invalid SGM configuration; or provide a valid SGM configuration to the user device based on the indicated invalid SGM configuration [ see page 36, lines 18-25; “RACH Procedure Failure - Embodiments of the first aspect of the present invention handle failures of a RACH procedure following the selection of a slice-specific RACH resource configuration and selection of the actual RACH resources from the slice-specific configuration to be used for the RACH procedure. In case the access procedure on the RACH resource selected from the determined slice-specific RACH resource configuration fails, the UE may repeat the random- access using RACH resources of a configured or preconfigured fallback RACH resource configuration, for example, provided by a SIB-slice"; see page 70, lines 12-26; “Modify an ongoing RACH procedure - In accordance with embodiments, to modify the ongoing RACH procedure, the UE may modify a certain message transmitted by the UE during the ongoing RACH procedure by including into the certain message, in addition to an indication of the first slice, an indication of the second slice so as to allow a base station to provide in response to the certain message parameters for a configuration of the first and second slices. The UE may alter the content of Msg3 if not already transmitted to the gNB. The Msg3 content may contain a MAC CE, which informs the gNB about the additional slice, e.g. slice#2, that triggered a RACH procedure, thus that the gNB may decide to alter its Msg4 using a different C-RNTI for the UE to be used for communication for slice#2” ]. Regarding claim 33 , Seidel discloses wherein the first network node comprises a core network node and/or a radio access network node [ see page 31, lines 20-26 ; “A RACH resource configuration policy may be stored in the core network, e.g. 5GC, and the UE may be configured or preconfigured with a default policy that may be updated based on a certain criterion or based on a request by the UE. For example, the UE may receive an updated or secondary slice specific RACH resource configuration policy from another entity of the wireless communication network, like a gNB or a sidelink UE or a relay or an entity of the 5GC (5G core network), e.g. by the access and mobility management function (AMF)"; see page 32, lines 1-4 ; "In accordance with embodiments, the slice-specific UE RACH resource configuration selection function may rely on information provided by the non-access stratum, NAS. The NAS mobility management, NAS-MM, function may communicate with the access mobility management function in the 5G core network, 5GC” ] . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 22 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel in view of Murray et al. (US 2023/0156583 A1, hereinafter “Murray”) . Regarding claims 22 and 36 , Seidel does not explicitly disclose check whether the SGM configuration is valid for a second TA when the user device moves from a first TA to the second TA; or check whether the SGM configuration is valid for a second registration area, RA, when the user device moves from a first RA to a second RA. However, Murray teaches check whether the SGM configuration is valid for a second TA when the user device moves from a first TA to the second TA; or check whether the SGM configuration is valid for a second registration area, RA, when the user device moves from a first RA to a second RA [ see Fig. 4, steps 231-232, para. 218; UE 201 reselects a cell 205 in TA1. At step 232, the UE 201 performs a Mobility Registration Update procedure to inform the network that it has moved to a TA that supports a different set of RAN slices ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “check whether the SGM configuration is valid for a second TA when the user device moves from a first TA to the second TA; or check whether the SGM configuration is valid for a second registration area, RA, when the user device moves from a first RA to a second RA”, as taught by Murray, into the system of Seidel so that it would provide Slice Registration Area for a given network slice [ see Murray, para. 215 ] . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidel in view of ("Summary of [AT116-e][240][Slicing] LS reply on slice list and priority Information", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #116-e, R2-2111308, Agenda: 8.8.1, CMCC, November 01-12, 2021, pp. 1-19, hereinafter “R2-2111308”) . Regarding claim 31 , Seidel does not explicitly disclose obtain a registration area, RA, configuration of the user device from a core network node to determine the SGM configuration. However, R2-2111308 teaches obtain a registration area, RA, configuration of the user device from a core network node to determine the SGM configuration [ see Q3, Ericsson, “UE will get the mapping Slice to Slice group in NAS signalling (registration), when UE enters new RA. Consequently, all cells in this RA (=list of TAs) need to apply the same Slice to Slice group mapping in SIB” ]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “obtain a registration area, RA, configuration of the user device from a core network node to determine the SGM configuration”, as taught by R2-2111308, into the system of Seidel so that it would support the granularities of the slice groups for cell reselection [ see R2-2111308, Q3 ] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lou et al. (US 2019/0289528 A1), see para. 11-61, discloses a cell access method and a device, to provide a network slice service area identifier and network slice configuration information for a terminal device, so that the terminal device accesses a target cell . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM. 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, JAE LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /BRIAN T LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 2 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 3 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 4 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 5 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 6 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 7 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 8 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 9 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 10 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 11 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 12 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 13 Art Unit: 2479 Application/Control Number: 18/724,908 Page 14 Art Unit: 2479
Prosecution Insights