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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 12/2/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 fora 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 7-9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view NINGLEKHU et al (2023/0052699) in view of FUTAKI et al US (PGPUB 2019/0349838.)
Regarding claim 1, NINGLEKHU et al disclose performed by a first node for
managing services in a network, the method comprising:
in response to receiving a service for a user equipment, UE, from at least one
second node that is incapable of handling network slices for providing the service (see
Fig. 13, para: 0078, 0187, 237, 0188, 0295, second node/AMF incapable/reject
controlling network slices/services):
assigning the service to one of a plurality of network slices in the network based
on a quality of service, QoS, indicator assigned to the service (see Fig. 3, para: 0133,
assigning service based on QoS indication.)
NINGLEKHU et al fail to teach wherein the first node knows itself or knows
from another node that the second node is incapable of handling network slices;
however, FUTAKI et al disclose whereby network nodes are aware of which network
nodes support and do not support (available or unavailable) network slice of wireless
devices (see Fig. 6-8, para: 0025, 0026, 0028, 0029.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein the first node knows itself or knows
from another node that the second (any system node) is incapable of handling network
slices as taught by Futaki et al with the teachings of NINGLEKHU for the purpose of
further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing
resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 7, NINGLEKHU et al further teach the method comprising:
continuously or periodically checking for the at least one second node (see fig. 3-5,
para: 0060.)
Regarding claim 8, NINGLEKHU et al further teach A first node comprising:
processing circuitry configured to operate (see fig. 3, para: 0133, 0135.)
Regarding claim 9 and 17, NINGLEKHU disclose a method performed by a
third node for managing services in a network, the method comprising:
assigning a quality of service, QoS, indicator to a service for a user equipment,
UE (see Fig. 3, para: 0133, assigning service based on QoS
Indication,)
wherein the service is from at least one second node that is incapable of
handling network slices (see Fig. 13, para: 0078, 0178, 0237, 0188, 0295,
second node/AMF incapable/reject controlling network slices/services):
NINGLEKHU et al fail to teach wherein the first node knows itself or knows
from another node that the second node is incapable of handling network slices;
however, FUTAKI et al disclose whereby network nodes are aware of which network
nodes support and do not support network slice of wireless devices (see Fig. 6-8,
para: 0025, 0026, 0028, 0029.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein the third node knows itself and/or knows
from another node that the second node is incapable of handling network slices as
taught by FUTAKI et al with the teachings of NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further
managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a
communication system.
Regarding claim 18, NINGLEKHU et al disclose a method performed by a
fourth node for provisioning network slices in a network, the method comprising:
in response to detection of at least one second node that is incapable of handling
network slices for a user equipment, UE, from the at least one second node (see Fig.
13, para: 0078, 0187, 0237, 0295 incapable/reject controlling network
slices/services):
provisioning a network slice to be dedicated to the at least one second node for
connecting the at least one second node to a third node for the third node to assign a
quality of service, QoS, indicator to the service (see Fig. 13, para: 0078, 0187, 237,
0188, 0295, second node/AMF incapable/reject controlling network
slices/services):
NINGLEKHU et al fail to teach wherein the fourth node knows itself and/or knows
from another node that the second node is incapable of handling network slices;
however, in analogous art, FUTAKI et al disclose wherein the fourth node knows itself
or knows from another node that the second node does not support handling
network slices (see Fig. 6-8, para: 0025, 0026, 0028, 0029.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein the fourth node knows itself and/or knows
from another node that the second node is incapable of handling network slices as
taught by FUTAKI et al with the teachings of NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further
managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a
communication system.
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
NINGLEKHU et al (USPGPUB 2023/0052699) in view of in view of FUTAKI et al (US PGPUB 2019/0349838) as applied to claim 1, 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Jalkanen et al (USPGPUB 20210234928.)
Regarding claim 20, although NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach a method
creating a network slice dedicated to the at least one second node to provision
the network slice, in analogous art, Jalkanen et al disclose an establishing dedicated
network slices (see Fig. 4, abstract, para: 0040.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized creating a network slice dedicated to the at least
one second node to provision the network slice as taught by Jalkanen with the
combined teachings of NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI for the purpose of further managing
resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a
communication system.
9. Claim(s) 2-4,10-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over NINGLEKHU et al (2023/0052699) in view of FUTAKI et al (US PGPUB 2019/0349838) as applied to claim 1, 9 and 18 above, and further in view of Dannebro et al (USPGPUB 20200112522).
Regarding claim 2, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein: the QoS
indicator is assigned to the service by a third node that is connectable to the at least
one second node via the first node, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose
QFl/quality indicator assigned to slice of SMF/third node connected to a second node
(see fig. 12.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein the first node knows itself and/or knows
from another node that the second node is incapable of handling network slices as
taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings and NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI for the
purpose of further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing
resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 3, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI o teach wherein: the third node
is connectable to the at least one second node via the first node by a network slice
provisioned, by a fourth node, to be dedicated to the at least one second node, in
analogous art, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose third node connect to a second
node thru a first node by a slice via a fourth node (see fig. 6A, 13 and 15.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized the third node is connectable to the at least one
second node via the first node by a network slice provisioned, by a fourth node, to be
dedicated to the at least one second node taught by Dannebro with the combined
teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further managing
resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a
communication system.
Regarding claim 4, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein:
the QoS indicator is unique to the service, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose 5G
QoS indicators are different (see para: 0308.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein the QoS indicator is unique to the service
taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the
purpose of further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing
resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 10, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach initiating
transmission of the QoS indicator assigned to the service towards a first node for the
first node to assign the service to one of a plurality of network slices in the network
based on the QoS indicator, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose QFl/quality
indicator assigned to slice of SMF/third node connected to a second node (see fig.
12.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized initiating transmission of the QoS indicator/QFI
assigned to the service towards a first node for the first node to assign the service to
one of a plurality of network slices in the network based on the QoS indicator as taught
by Dannebro with the combined teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the purpose of
further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing
resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 11, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein: the third
node is connectable to the at least one second node via the first node; however,
Dannebro disclose the third node is connectable to the at least one second node via the
first node (see fig. 4, 5, 7& 8, third node connectable to second node thru first
node.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized the third node is connectable to the at least one
second node via the first node as taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings
FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further managing resources/services, as
well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 12, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein: the third
node is connectable to the at least one second node via the first node by a network slice
provisioned, by a fourth node, to be dedicated to the at least one second node, in
analogous art, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose third node connect to a second
node thru a first node by a slice via a fourth node (see fig. 6A, 13 and 15.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized the third node is connectable to the at least one
second node via the first node by a network slice provisioned, by a fourth node, to be
dedicated to the at least one second node taught by Dannebro with the combined
teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further managing
resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a
communication system.
Regarding claim 13, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein: the third
node is connectable to the at least one second node via the first node by the network
slice provisioned by the fourth node; however, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose
the third node is connectable to the at least one second node via the first node by the
network slice provisioned by the fourth node (see fig. 6A, 13 and 15.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein: the third node is connectable to the at
least one second node via the first node by the network slice provisioned by the fourth
node taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for
the purpose of further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay
accessing resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 14, NINGLEKHU and ZEE fail to teach wherein:
the QoS indicator is unique to the service, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose 5G
QoS indicators are different (see para: 0308.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized wherein the QoS indicator is unique to the service
taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the
purpose of further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing
resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 19, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach connecting the at
least one second node to the third node is via a first node for the first node to assign the
service to one of a plurality of network slices in the network based on the QoS indicator
assigned to the service, in analogous art, Dannebro et al disclose connecting the at
least one second node to the third node is via a first node for the first node to assign the
service to one of a plurality of network slices in the network based on the QoS indicator
assigned to the service (see fig. 12, QFl/quality indicator assigned to slice of
SMF third node connected to a second node.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized connecting the at least one second node to the
third node is via a first node for the first node to assign the service to one of a plurality of
network slices in the network based on the QoS indicator assigned to the service as
taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the
purpose of further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing
resources/slices in a communication system.
10. Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over in view NINGLEKHU et al (2023/0052699) in view of FUTAKI et al US (PGPUB
2019/0349838) and Dannebro et al (USPGPUB 20200112522).
Regarding claim 5, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein:
the QoS indicator is based on: a first parameter indicative of a priority of the
network slice to which the service is assigned relative to one or more other network
slices; and/or a second parameter indicative of a QoS for the service in the network
slice, in analogous art, Dannebro disclose QoS indicator is based on: a first parameter
indicative of a priority of the network slice to which the service is assigned relative to
one or more other network slices (see fig. 3-6, first parameter priority w/r slices);
and/or a second parameter indicative of a QoS for the service in the network slice (see
fig. 3-6, second parameter w/r QoS for service/slice.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have utilized QoS indicator is based on: a first parameter
indicative of a priority of the network slice to which the service is assigned relative to
one or more other network slices as taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings
FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further managing resources/services, as
well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 6, NINGLEKHU disclose wherein the first parameter and/or
second parameter are predefined in the network (see para: 0076, 0138, policies
preset).
Regarding claim 15, NINGLEKHU and FUTAKI fail to teach wherein: the QoS indicator is based on: a first parameter indicative of a priority of the network slice to which the service is assigned relative to one or more other network slices; and/or a second parameter indicative of a QoS for the service in the network slice, in analogous art, Dannebro disclose QoS indicator is based on: a first parameter indicative of a priority of the network slice to which the service is assigned relative to one or more other network slices (see fig. 3-6, first parameter priority w/r slices); and/or a second parameter indicative of a QoS for the service in the network slice (see fig. 3-6, second parameter w/r QoS for service/slice.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized QoS indicator is based on: a first parameter indicative of a priority of the network slice to which the service is assigned relative to one or more other network slices as taught by Dannebro with the combined teachings FUTAKI and NINGLEKHU for the purpose of further managing resources/services, as well as minimize delay accessing resources/slices in a communication system.
Regarding claim 16, NINGLEKHU disclose wherein the first parameter and/or second parameter are predefined in the network (see para: 0076, 0138, policies preset.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach the claimed second node that is incapable of handling network slices because the AMF of Ninglekhu can reject a UE if the UE is not allowed to access a requested slice. Thus it is the UE that is not capable of accessing the slice and not the node being incapable of handling the slice. Applicant further argues the cited art does not teach the first node is a relay base station connecting the second node to a core network since the AMF is a core node.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ninglekhu teaches that the AMF is not able to redirect the UE to a single frequency that will work for the S-NSSAI; Paragraph 237. This is viewed as the node being incapable of handling the slices. The term “incapable of handling” is a vague term where the bounds of what “incapable of handling” truly means isn’t defined. As discussed in paragraph 237, when the UE attempts to register with a set of slices and the AMF detects the UL is trying to register with slices that cannot be used in the same frequency, the AMF knows this and thus does not provide requested registration. The AMF is thus incapable of handling that particular request with respect to network slices.
Regarding Futaki, Applicant makes a similar argument stating the base station transmits availability information of a specific network slice which means the network node is capable of handling network slices and the only question is whether or not a slice is available. As noted above, there is no definition to what being incapable of handling the network slices means. In the event a network slice is not available, then the node is “not capable” of handling the network slice at that moment.
The Examiner suggests better defining the claim language for what “incapable of handling network slices” really means. Based on the Applicant’s specification, it appears this means that the second network node does not have the ability to create network slices (See paragraph 6 of applicant’s published specification). Adding features such as this to better define what the incapability is would overcome the prior art of record.
Regarding the argument that the AMF is not connected to the core via a relay base station, the Examiner notes the claim language does not state where the second node is located, thus there is nothing that prevents the node from being within the core network already. The Examiner suggest defining where the second network node actually resides. This would then overcome the prior art of record where the AMF is a part of the core.
Further defining the claims to expressly state what the incapability is (such as cannot create slices) and further defining the precise location of the second network node (something such as not a part of the core network) would obviate the current prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights