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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This office action is responsive to application 17/627,230 and the RCE filed on January 13, 2026. Claims 29, 34, 39, and 45 are amended, claim 44 is canceled, and claims 29, 31-34, 36-39, 41-43, and 45 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments filed with the RCE, and the Examiner responds as provided below.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 7 and 8 of the Remarks that concerns the § 103 rejection, the Applicant alleges that “the Examiner merely makes the conclusory statements that it would be obvious to one skill (sic) in the art that TR 23.700-40 teaches the above claim elements.” Reply at 8. While the Applicant complains that the Examiner relies upon conclusory statements, Applicant has failed to provide specific examples and recitations to the record that would substantiate their argument (as opposed to the “Third” part of Applicant’s argument where support was provided for the allegation of conclusory statements).
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 8-11 of the Remarks that concerns the § 103 rejection, the Applicant argues that inferences made by the Examiner regarding the maximum number of UEs per network slice is erroneous. The Examiner respectively disagrees. The Applicant notes that TR 23.700-40 indicates that “How the NSQ entity knows about the quota is [For Further Study].” Reply at 9. However, the Examiner also relied upon Casati et al. (US 2022/0256439, entitled Method and Apparatus for Enforcement of Maximum Number of User Equipments per Network Slice in a Communication System), whereby even the title of the disclosure seemingly suggests that “further stud[ies]” were pursued by others. Given the state of the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application—and not at or prior to the publication date of TR 23.700-40—the Examiner maintains that the inferences employed in the § 103 rejection are proper given the high level of skill of persons practicing within the computer sciences.
The Applicant further argues that “TR 23.700-40 is silent as to whether there is a step to determine whether a UE Id is in a list of registered UEs,” and thereby TR 23.700-40 fails to “teach … ‘determine whether the UE_Id is in a list of UEs registered with a network slice[.]” Id. The Examiner’s rejection is proper because the Applicant seemingly fails to appreciate that references may also suggest claim limitations and need not necessarily meet the heightened standard of literally teaching claim limitations. See MPEP § 2141(III) (stating “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Here, TR 23.700-40 teaches “the NSQ node adds the UE Id to the list of UEs registered.” To avoid duplicative entries, a reasonable inference is that a “determin[ation]” is made as to “whether the UE_Id is in a list of UEs registered with a network slice.” The fact that TR 23.700-40 fails to literally teach this limitation is a consequence of list management being a simple and obvious technique that is understood even by children.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 11-13 of the Remarks that concerns the § 103 rejection, the Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the claim amendments are persuasive, and consequently the Examiner conducted a new prior art search. The Applicant’s arguments are now moot with respect to the pending claims because the arguments do not apply to one of the references currently used in the rejection of the aforementioned claims as detailed below.
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.
The following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 29, 31, 33-34, 36, 38-39, 41, 43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casati et al. (US 2022/0256439, “Casati”) in view of 3GPP Technical Report 23.700-40 (“TR 23.700”), and further in view of Tang et al. (US 2019/0123963, “Tang”).
Regarding Claim 29
Casati discloses
A network node (Fig. 3, ¶ [0038], i.e., the “Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF)” as a network node as illustrated in Fig. 3) for network slice management (¶ [0046], “Allowed NSSAI [Network Slice Selection Assistance Information] by transmitting an Nnssf_Selection_get or other service request message related or dedicated to enforcement of the capping number of UEs per slice (e.g., capping number of UEs allowed to access a network slice) which may include information about the requested NSSAIs and flags indicating capping required to the NSSF [Network Slice Selection Function that encompasses network slice management] 304.”),
the network node (Fig. 3, ¶ [0038]) comprising:
a memory (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0040]-[0042], “In an example embodiment, the processor 202 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory device 204 or otherwise accessible to the processor.”); and
at least one processor configured to access the memory (Fig. 2, ¶¶ [0040]-[0042], “In an example embodiment, the processor 202 may be configured to execute instructions stored in the memory device 204 or otherwise accessible to the processor.”) and configured to:
receive, from a core network node for mobility management, a first request…1 (Fig. 3, ¶ [0046], “At operation 312, AMF [a core network node] 302 attempts to retrieve the subscription information that may indicate subscribed NSSAIs [Network Slice Selection Assistance Information] related to slices that are subject to the limitation of the number of UEs per slice. In some embodiments, as illustrated in operation 313, the AMF 302 retrieves the Allowed NSAI by transmitting an Nnssf_Selection_get or other service [first] request message [that is received by the NSSF/network node as illustrated in Fig. 3] related or dedicated to enforcement of the capping number of UEs per slice (e.g., capping number of UEs allowed to access a network slice)”);
2 …;
3 …;
4 …;
5 …; and
send, to the core network node for mobility management, a first response indicating whether or not a max number of User Equipment (UEs) registered for the network slice is reached (¶¶ [0048]-[0049], “At operation 315, the NSSF 304 transmits [sends] an Nnssf_Selection_get_Response [first response] or other service response related or dedicated to enforcement of [indicates] the capping [max] number of UEs per [network] slice. The service response may include the Allowed NSSAI and if an S-NSSAI is rejected due to the number of user equipment reached for the S-NSSAI, an indication that such S-NSSAI is rejected due to the fact the maximum number of UEs for the slice has been reached.”).
Casati doesn’t disclose
1 … including an identification of a User Equipment (UE_Id) and an update flag that is set to an increase or a decrease,
2 wherein the increase of the update flag indicates that a number of UEs registered with the network slice is to be increased, and
wherein the decrease of the update flag indicates that the number of UEs registered with the network slice is to be decreased;
3 determine whether the UE_Id is in a list of UEs registered with a network slice;
4 stop further processing in a first case where the UE_Id is in the list of UEs;
5 add the UE_Id to the list of UEs in a second case where the UEId is not in the list of UEs registered with the network slice;
TR 23.700, however, discloses
1 … including an identification of a User Equipment and…a (see Tang below) (UE_Id) (p. 14-17, “If the max number of the UEs per S-NSSAI has not been reached yet, the NSQ node adds the UE_Id [as an identification of a User Equipment] to the list of UEs registered for S-NSSAI and…”),
3 determine whether the UE_Id is in a list of UEs registered with a network slice (p. 14-17, “If the max number of the UEs per S-NSSAI has not been reached yet, the NSQ node adds the UE_Id [as an identification of a User Equipment] to the list of UEs registered for S-NSSAI and…”, i.e., the process outlined in TR 23.700 does not literally teach a “determine whether the UE_Id is in a list of UEs registered with a network slice;” however, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that such a determination occurs implicitly for two related reasons. First, the process of determining the maximum number of allowed UEs per a network slice is based upon an accurate count of the UEs, which entails keeping an accurate record of the UEs in the list. Second, after a maximum has not been reached, “the NSQ node adds the UE_Id to the list,” which implies a “determin[ation]” that the UE_Id does not belong on the list, or else it would not be added to the list. See MPEP § 2141(III), stating “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations, however, Office personnel must explain why the difference(s) between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”);
4 stop further processing in a first case where the UE_Id is in the list of UEs (p. 14-17, “If the max number of the UEs per S-NSSAI has not been reached yet, the NSQ node adds the UE_Id [as an identification of a User Equipment] to the list of UEs registered for S-NSSAI and…”, i.e., TR 23.700 teaches whether to add or not add a UE with respect to a maximum quota for a network slice, but TR 23.700 is silent to stopping “processing … where the UE_id is in the list of UEs;” however, giving the teaching of adding a UE to a list with respect to a maximum quota, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to stop the processing of adding a UE to a list when it already occurs on the list);
5 add the UE_Id to the list of UEs in a second case where the UEId is not in the list of UEs registered with the network slice (p. 17, “If the max number of the UEs per S-NSSAI has not been reached yet, the NSQ node adds the UE_Id to the list
of UEs registered for S-NSSAI and increases the number of the UEs registered for S-NSSAI.”, i.e., it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that to maintain an accurate count of UEs to determine when a maximum number of UEs is reached, a UE would need to be added to the list when it is not on the list);
Regarding the combination of Casati and TR 23.700, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network slice system to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the network slice system of Casati, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a UE registration feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the network slice system of TR 23.700, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the UE registration feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the UE registration feature to the base network slice system of Casati, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Tang, however, discloses
a (see TR 27.300 above) …an update flag that is set to an increase or a decrease (¶ [0065], “A ‘resource indicator’ [an update flag] may include one or more of the following: an indicator of a quantity [to increase or decrease] of instances included in a network slice, an indicator of a quantity of VMs, a CPU indicator of each VM, a memory indicator, or another indicator such as a bandwidth utilization indicator.”),
2 wherein the increase of the update flag indicates that a number of UEs registered with the network slice is to be increased, and wherein the decrease of the update flag indicates that the number of UEs registered with the network slice is to be decreased (¶¶ [0087]-[0092], “The monitoring module 506 in each network slice is configured to periodically collect a resource indicator [update flag] and a service indicator of the network slice instance 505 included in the network slice.”; “When the network slice includes the slice elastic scaling [to increase or decrease the number of registered UEs] decision module 507, the monitoring module 506 may report the collected resource indicator and service indicator to the slice elastic scaling decision module 507 in the network slice.”; “As shown in FIG. 5, si,t, sj,t, and sk,t respectively represent resource indicators [update flags] and service indicators of the network slice i 502, the network slice j 503,…”; and ¶¶ [0100]-[0101], “An objective of the scale-out [increase the number of UEs registered with the network slice is to be increased] is to supplement a specific quantity of network slice instances in time, to satisfy a resource demand of a network service. An objective of the scale-in [increase the number of UEs registered with the network slice is to be increased] is to recycle a specific quantity of network slice instances in time when the network service is idle, to avoid a waste of resources.”);
Regarding the combination of Casati-TR 23.700 and Tang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network slice system of Casati-TR 23.700 to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the network slice system of Casati-TR 23.700, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a increment/decrement flag feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the network slice system of Tang, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the increment/decrement flag feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the increment/decrement flag feature to the base network slice system of Casati-TR 23.700, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 31
Casati in view of TR 23.700, and further in view of Tang (“Casati-TR 23.700-Tang”) discloses the network node for network slice management according to claim 29, and TR 23.700 further discloses
wherein the UEId is registered with the network slice (p.17, “The NSQ checks whether the quota for the number of UEs per S-NSSAI [and associated network slices] has already been reached. If the UE is registering for multiple S-NSSAis, the check is done per each of them.”; and “If the max number of the UEs per S-NSSAI has not been reached yet, the NSQ node adds [registers] the UE_Id to the list of UEs registered for S-NSSAI [and associated network slice] and increases the number of the UEs registered for S-NSSAI.”).
Regarding the combination of Casati and TR 23.700, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 29 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 29 and 31.
Regarding Claim 33
Casati-TR 23.700-Tang discloses the network node for network slice management according to claim 29, and Casati further discloses
wherein the first response is a response to the first request (Fig. 3, ¶ [0046], “In some embodiments, as illustrated in operation 313, the AMF 302 retrieves the Allowed NSAI by transmitting an Nnssf_Selection_get or other service [first] request message related or dedicated to enforcement of the capping number of UEs per slice (e.g., capping number of UEs allowed to access a network slice)”; and TR 23.700 Fig. 6.2.3, i.e., via the illustrated requests and responses ).
Regarding the combination of Casati and TR 23.700, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 29 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 29 and 33.
Regarding Claim 45
Casati-TR 23.700-Tang discloses the method according to claim 34, and TR 23.700 further discloses
further comprising increasing the number of UEs registered with the network slice, in a second case where the UE_Id is not in the list of UEs registered with the first network slice (p. 17, “If the max number of the UEs per S-NSSAI has not been reached yet, the NSQ node adds the UE_Id to the list of UEs registered for S-NSSAI [and thereby increases the number of UEs registered with the network slice when the second case occurs] and increases the number of the UEs registered for S-NSSAI.”).
Regarding the combination of Casati and TR 23.700, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 29 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 29 and 45.
Regarding Claims 34-36, 38-41 and 43
With respect to independent claims 34 and 39 and dependent claims 35-36, 38, 40-41, and 43, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 29 and dependent claims 30-31 and 33 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 34-36, 38-41, and 43. Therefore, claims 34-36, 38-41, and 43 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claims 29-31 and 33.
B. Claims 32, 37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casati in view of TR 23.700 and Tang, and further in view of Velev et al. (US 2020/0162919, “Velev”).
Regarding Claim 32
Casati-TR 23.700-Tang discloses the network node for network slice management according to claim 29, and Casati further discloses
wherein the first request (Fig. 3, ¶ [0046]) is…1
Casati-TR 23.700-Tang doesn’t disclose
1 triggered based on Network Slice Specific Authentication and Authorization (NSSAA) procedure;
Velev, however, discloses
1 …triggered based on Network Slice Specific Authentication and Authorization (NSSAA) procedure (¶ [0034], “However, it remains unclear from the current state of the art how to handle the case of a S-NSSAI being rejected due to failed NSSAA [process] or revoked NSSAA.”; ¶¶ [0035]-[0036], “In a first solution, during network slice authentication (also referred to as slice-specific secondary authentication and authorization or NSSAA), if the NSSAA fails (or NSSAA has been revoked), the AMF needs to disallow the UE to use the corresponding S-NSSAI, for which the NSSAA failed/was revoked.”, and ¶ [0037], “A new reject cause for rejected S-NSSAI is introduced for failed/revoked slice authentication/authorization. Optionally an unavailability time (e.g., a kind of back-off time) to disallow further registration for the S-NSSAI may be included. Either the AAA-S or the AMF may determine and signal the unavailability timer, during which the UE is not to re-try to register to the rejected S-NSSAI.” i.e., after the NSSAA process failure, this triggers the first request of the core network node/AMF to send the first request).
Regarding the combination of Casati-TR 23.700-Tang and Velev, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network slice system to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the network slice system of Casati-TR 23.700-Tang, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a NSSAA trigger feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the network system of Velev, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the NSSAA trigger feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the NSSAA trigger feature to the base network slice system of Casati-TR 23.700-Tang, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 37 and 42
With respect to dependent claims 37 and 42, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for dependent claim 32 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 37 and 42. Therefore, claims 37 and 42 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 32.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491