DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 07/18/2024.
Claims 1- 14 are pending for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 07/18/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application.
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 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(a) 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1- 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viswanath et al. (US20230138108A1), hereinafter “Viswanath”; and in further view of Park et al. (US 20200413241 A1), hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding claim 1, Viswanath teaches A method of a user equipment (UE) for managing a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) list, the method comprising: receiving, from a network, a registration accept message with at least one partial NSSAI [Viswanath: Abstract teaches configured to transmit a registration request message to a network, the registration request message comprising a request to register to a set of one or more single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAIs)];
receiving, from the network, a configuration update command message with at least one partial NSSAI [Viswanath: Abstract and Fig. 6 further teaches the response indicating that the request to register to the set of one or more S-NSSAIs is rejected and store the set of one or more S-NSSAIs in a rejected NSSAI list locally at the UE]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
510
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Viswanath does not explicitly teach deleting the at least one partial NSSAI stored in the UE based on a length of the at least one partial NSSAI of the configuration update command message being zero.
However, Park, in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches deleting the at least one partial NSSAI stored in the UE based on a length of the at least one partial NSSAI of the configuration update command message being zero
[Park: Fig. 5; Par. 299- 304, 319,269 teaches If the UE receives a new configured NSSAI in the CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND message, the UE considers the new configured NSSAI for the registered PLMN as valid and the old configured NSSAI for the registered PLMN as invalid; and the UE shall delete the stored allowed NSSAI and perform a mobility registration update procedure to obtain anew allowed NSSAI. ].
PNG
media_image2.png
592
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention was made to utilize the teaching of Park for deleting NSSAI. One of the ordinary skill in the art would be motivate to utilize the teaching of Park in the Viswanath system in order to request and configured updated command massage [Park: Par. 265- 299].
Regarding claim 2, the combined Viswanath in view of Park teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Viswanath in view of Park further teaches wherein the at least one partial NSSAI comprises at least one of a partially allowed NSSAI and a partially rejected NSSAI [Park: Fig. 6; Par. 325- 329 teaches UE use at least one S-NSSAI of S-NSSAIs included in allowed NSSAI].
Regarding claim 3, the combined Viswanath in view of Park teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Viswanath in view of Park further teaches wherein the length of the at least one partial NSSAI of the configuration update command message being zero indicates that the at least one partial NSSAI does not include a single-NSSAI (S-NSSAI) [Par. 34- 336 teaches of UE delete rejected S-NSSAI and does not request to use/ does not include S-NSSAI included in the rejected NSSAI].
Regarding claim 4, the combined Viswanath in view of Park teaches all the limitations in the parent claim 1. Viswanath in view of Park further teaches retaining the at least one partial NSSAI stored in the UE based on the length of the at least one partial NSSAI of the configuration update command message not being zero [Park: Par. 340 teaches UE may store rejected S-NSSAI].
Regarding claim 5, Viswanath teaches A method of a network for managing a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) list, the method comprising [Viswanath: Fig. 6].
transmitting a registration accept message with at least one partial NSSAI to a user equipment (UE) [Viswanath: Abstract teaches configured to transmit a registration request message to a network, the registration request message comprising a request to register to a set of one or more single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAIs)];
transmitting the configuration update command message to the UE [Viswanath: Abstract and Fig. 6 further teaches the response indicating that the request to register to the set of one or more S-NSSAIs is rejected and store the set of one or more S-NSSAIs in a rejected NSSAI list locally at the UE]; and
PNG
media_image1.png
510
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Viswanath does not explicitly teach setting a length of at least one partial NSSAI of a configuration update command message being zero.
However, Park, in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches setting a length of at least one partial NSSAI of a configuration update command message being zero [Park: Fig. 5; Par. 299- 304, 319,269 teaches If the UE receives a new configured NSSAI in the CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND message, the UE considers the new configured NSSAI for the registered PLMN as valid and the old configured NSSAI for the registered PLMN as invalid; and the UE shall delete the stored allowed NSSAI and perform a mobility registration update procedure to obtain anew allowed NSSAI. ].
PNG
media_image2.png
592
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention was made to utilize the teaching of Park for deleting NSSAI. One of the ordinary skill in the art would be motivate to utilize the teaching of Park in the Viswanath system in order to request and configured updated command massage [Park: Par. 265- 299].
Regarding claim 6, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth for claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights