DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Amendment filed on 2/02/2026. Claims 1, 20-21, and 23 have
been amended. Claims 1-2, 4-15, 20-21 and 23-24 remain pending in the application.
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 2/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments (page 7-8), filed on 2/02/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections of
claims 1, 20-21, and 23 have been fully considered but are moot because new ground of rejections using a newly introduced reference (Young et al.) are applied in the current rejection.
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 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 of this title, 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, 20-21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Faccin et al. (US 2021/0144790 Al, hereinafter “Faccin”) in view of Young et al. (US 2020/0196227 Al, hereinafter “Young”) and in further view of 3GPP TR 23.700-40 V0.3.0 (2020-01), (Technical Report, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on Enhancement of Network Slicing Phase 2, Release 17, hereafter “3GPP”).
Regarding claim 1, Faccin discloses:
An apparatus comprising (An apparatus of wireless communication at a network entity is described, Faccin: [0012]):
at least one processor (apparatus may include a processor, Faccin: [0012]); and
at least one memory including computer program code (memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory, Faccin: [0012]);
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (include a processor, memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory. the instructions may be executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive a message for establishing a session via a network slice, Faccin: [0025]):
Faccin does not explicitly disclose:
determine that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice is less than or equal to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young teaches:
determine that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice is less than or equal to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice (the NSSF can determine a set of network slice policies to be considered whenselecting an NSI. The set of network slice policies, which can be maintained by a policy control function (PCF) component of the core network, can include a guaranteed minimum data rate policy (e.g., minimum download and upload speeds). the set of network slice policies can define a low latency performance requirement (e.g., an end-to-end communications transmission time less than or equal to a threshold), Young: [0019]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin in view of Young in order to further modify determining that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice that is less than or equal to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice from the teachings of Young.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because a user experience and/or customer
experience associated with establishing a network slice instance (NSI) for a UE and/or a plurality of UEs can be improved over previous techniques (Young: [0012]).
Yet, Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
adjust at least one of a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice or a maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
adjust at least one of a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice or a maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice (network may need to make adjustment to network to control aggregate traffic in UL and DL across the slice. e.g. trigger fairness across UE data rates in the PLMN when this limit of data rate is reached. adjust per UE data rate limits and total number of UEs operating in the slice, 3GPP: Page 13 Sec. 5.5.1);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify the threshold value and adjusting a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice or a maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 2, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
adjust the maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice while abstaining from adjusting the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice (generic network slice aims at the limitation of the number of the maximum uplink or downlink data rate per slice for a UE, and is a rate limitation per UE. Network may determine whether to allow or reject access to the network slice based on whether criteria associated with the parameters of the network slice are satisfied, Faccin: [0076], [0124]).
Regarding claim 4, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice reached the threshold value comprises:
determining that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice reached the threshold value based on a number of terminals operating on the network slice and the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice (the criteria associated with the generic network slice parameters may be whether a maximum number of users for the network slice has been reached, whether a maximum throughput (bit rate) for the network slice has been reached, etc., Faccin: [0112]).
Regarding claim 5, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
enforce the maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice (generic network slice aims at the limitation of the number of devices supported per slice, Faccin: [0076], [0124]).
Regarding claim 6, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
provide a notification indicating the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice (network may trigger a notification towards the UE of the change of the network slices using a generic UE configuration update procedure. SMF may allow the establishment of PDU sessions with a reduced throughput. the SMF may indicate that a PDU session is established with a reduced throughput (bit rate), Faccin: [0096], [0106]).
Regarding claim 7, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
determine the number of terminals operating on the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
determine the number of terminals operating on the network slice (Figure 6.4.3 .2.2-1 shows the procedure to get the information of the current number of UEs registered to a network slice, 3GPP: Fig 6.4.3.2.2-1, Page 28 Sec. 6.4.3.2.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining the number of terminals operating on the network slice from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 8, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining the number of terminals operating on the network slice comprises:
determining that a first packet data unit session is established by a terminal for the network slice; and
increment the number of terminals operating on the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
determining that a first packet data unit session is established by a terminal for the network slice (PCF detects that the S-NSSAI of the PDU Session is subject to quota management and establishment of PDU Sessions, 3GPP: Page 41 Sec. 6.6.3.4); and
increment the number of terminals operating on the network slice (it increments a counter if the S-NSSAI is allowed for the UE, 3GPP: Page 21 Sec. 6.3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining a first packet data unit session is established by a terminal for the network slice and incrementing the number of terminals operating on the network slice from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 9, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein determining the number of terminals operating on the network slice comprises:
determining that a last packet data unit session is released by a terminal for the network slice; and
decrement the number of terminals operating on the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
determining that a last packet data unit session is released by a terminal for the network slice (PCF detects that the S-NSSAI of the PDU Session is subject to quota management and release of PDU Sessions, 3GPP: Page 41 Sec. 6.6.3.4); and
decrement the number of terminals operating on the network slice (when a UE no longer uses a S-NSSAI subject to counting, the AMF indicates that to the NSSF which decreases the counter, 3GPP: Page 21 Sec. 6.3.2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify determining a last packet data unit session is released by a terminal for the network slice and decrement the number of terminals operating on the network slice from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 10, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a policy control function serving the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a policy control function serving the network slice (PCF: apply/enforce the network slice related local quota on the number of UEs, 3GPP: Page 19 Sec. 6.1.4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify comprising a policy control function serving the network slice from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 12, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the apparatus comprises one of a plurality of policy control functions serving the network slice; and
wherein another one of the plurality of policy control function is registered with the apparatus to receive the notification indicating the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice from the apparatus.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises one of a plurality of policy control functions serving the network slice (may have multiple enforcement points (e.g., PCF instances of a Network Slice) to perform the SLA enforcement of network slice, 3GPP: Page 17 Sec. 6.1.1); and
wherein another one of the plurality of policy control function is registered with the apparatus to receive the notification indicating the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice from the apparatus (attribute defines the maximum data rate supported by the network slice. these parameters can be used to offer different network slice contract qualities level which have different maximum throughput values. network may need to make adjustment to network to control aggregate traffic in UL and DL across the slice, 3GPP: Page 13 Sec. 5.5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify the policy control function that is registered with the apparatus to receive the notification indicating the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice from the apparatus from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 13, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin further discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice is different from a subscribed maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice (GST may point explicitly to the definition of parameters and bounds on the service and aims at the limitation of the maximum uplink or downlink data rate per slice. SMF may establish the PDU session with reduced throughput based on determining that the criteria associated with the GST parameters of the network slice are not satisfied, Faccin: [0076], [0125]).
Regarding claim 14, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the aggregate bit rate for the network slice is an aggregate bit rate for the network slice for an uplink;
wherein the threshold value is a threshold value for the uplink; and
wherein the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice comprises a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice for the uplink.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the threshold value is a threshold value for the uplink (limit the data rate of UE for a Network Slice in uplink, 3GPP: Page 12 Sec. 5.3.1); and
wherein the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice comprises a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice for the uplink (maximum uplink throughput per UE parameters could be used in order to offer different contract qualities, 3GPP: Page 12 Sec. 5.3.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify the threshold value and maximum bit rate for the uplink from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 15, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the aggregate bit rate for the network slice is an aggregate bit rate for the network slice for a downlink;
wherein the threshold value is a threshold value for the downlink; and
wherein the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice comprises a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice for the downlink.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
wherein the threshold value is a threshold value for the downlink (limit the data rate of UE for a Network Slice in downlink, 3GPP: Page 12 Sec. 5.3.1); and
wherein the maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice comprises a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice for the uplink (maximum downlink throughput describes the maximum data rate supported by the network slice per UE in downlink, 3GPP: Page 12 Sec. 5.3.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify the threshold value and maximum bit rate for the downlink from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 20, Faccin discloses:
An apparatus comprising (An apparatus of wireless communication at a network entity is described, Faccin: [0012]):
at least one processor (apparatus may include a processor, Faccin: [0012]); and
at least one memory including computer program code (memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory, Faccin: [0012]);
the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (include a processor, memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory. the instructions may be executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive a message for establishing a session via a network slice, Faccin: [0025]):
receive a notification indicating an adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for a network slice (network may trigger a notification towards the UE of the change of the network slices using a generic UE configuration update procedure. SMF may allow the establishment of PDU sessions with a reduced throughput. the SMF may indicate that a PDU session is established with a reduced throughput (bit rate). the criteria associated with the generic network slice parameters may be a maximum throughput (bit rate) for the network slice has been reached, etc., Faccin: [0096], [0106], [0112]),
Faccin does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young teaches:
wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice (the NSSF can determine a set of network slice policies to be considered whenselecting an NSI. The set of network slice policies, which can be maintained by a policy control function (PCF) component of the core network, can include a guaranteed minimum data rate policy (e.g., minimum download and upload speeds). the set of network slice policies can define a low latency performance requirement (e.g., an end-to-end communications transmission time less than or equal to a threshold), Young: [0019]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin in view of Young in order to further modify the threshold value which comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice from the teachings of Young.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because a user experience and/or customer
experience associated with establishing a network slice instance (NSI) for a UE and/or a plurality of UEs can be improved over previous techniques (Young: [0012]).
Yet, Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
enforce the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
enforce the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice (network may need to make adjustment to network to control aggregate traffic in UL and DL across the slice. e.g. trigger fairness across UE data rates in the PLMN when this limit of data rate is reached. adjust per UE data rate limits and total number of UEs operating in the slice, 3GPP: Page 13 Sec. 5.5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify enforcing the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 21, Faccin discloses:
A method comprising (A method of wireless communication at a network entity is described, Faccin: [0011]):
Faccin does not explicitly disclose:
determining that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice is less than or equal to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value and/or an upper aggregate bit rate threshold value; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young teaches:
determining that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice is less than or equal to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value and/or an upper aggregate bit rate threshold value (the NSSF can determine a set of network slice policies to be considered when selecting an NSI. The set of network slice policies, which can be maintained by a policy control function (PCF) component of the core network, can include a guaranteed minimum data rate policy (e.g., minimum download and upload speeds). the set of network slice policies can define a low latency performance requirement (e.g., an end-to-end communications transmission time less than or equal to a threshold), Young: [0019]); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin in view of Young in order to further modify determining that an aggregate bit rate for a network slice that is less than or equal to a threshold value, wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice from the teachings of Young.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because a user experience and/or customer
experience associated with establishing an network slice instance (NSI) for a UE and/or a plurality of UEs can be improved over previous techniques (Young: [0012]).
Yet, Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
adjusting at least one of a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice or a maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
adjusting at least one of a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice or a maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice (network may need to make adjustment to network to control aggregate traffic in UL and DL across the slice. e.g. trigger fairness across UE data rates in the PLMN when this limit of data rate is reached. adjust per UE data rate limits and total number of UEs operating in the slice, 3GPP: Page 13 Sec. 5.5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify adjusting a maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice or a maximum number of terminals allowed to operate on the network slice from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 23, Faccin discloses:
A method comprising (A method of wireless communication at a network entity is described, Faccin: [0011]):
receiving a notification indicating an adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for a network slice (network may trigger a notification towards the UE of the change of the network slices using a generic UE configuration update procedure. SMF may allow the establishment of PDU sessions with a reduced throughput. the SMF may indicate that a PDU session is established with a reduced throughput (bit rate). the criteria associated with the generic network slice parameters may be a maximum throughput (bit rate) for the network slice has been reached, etc., Faccin: [0096], [0106], [0112]):
Faccin does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Young teaches:
wherein the threshold value comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice (the NSSF can determine a set of network slice policies to be considered when selecting an NSI. The set of network slice policies, which can be maintained by a policy control function (PCF) component of the core network, can include a guaranteed minimum data rate policy (e.g., minimum download and upload speeds). the set of network slice policies can define a low latency performance requirement (e.g., an end-to-end communications transmission time less than or equal to a threshold), Young: [0019]; and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin in view of Young in order to further modify the threshold value which comprises a minimum aggregate bit rate threshold value of the network slice from the teachings of Young.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because a user experience and/or customer
experience associated with establishing a network slice instance (NSI) for a UE and/or a plurality of UEs can be improved over previous techniques (Young: [0012]).
Yet, Faccin in view of Young does not explicitly disclose:
enforcing the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches:
enforcing the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network slice (network may need to make adjustment to network to control aggregate traffic in UL and DL across the slice. e.g. trigger fairness across UE data rates in the PLMN when this limit of data rate is reached. adjust per UE data rate limits and total number of UEs operating in the slice, 3GPP: Page 13 Sec. 5.5.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin and Young in view of 3GPP in order to further modify enforcing the adjusted maximum bit rate per terminal for the network from the teachings of 3GPP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may be used to scale the network slice and provides enough resources to the network slice (3GPP: Page 10 Sec. 5.1.1).
Regarding claim 24, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Faccin further discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions encoded thereon which, when run on one or more processors, perform the method of claim 21 (include a processor, memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory. the instructions may be executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive a message for establishing a session via a network slice, Faccin: [0025]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faccin-Young-3GPP and in
further view of POE, Wint Yi (WO 2021/089160 A1, hereinafter “Poe”).
Regarding claim 11, Faccin-Young-3GPP teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Faccin-Young-3GPP does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the apparatus comprises a single policy control function serving the network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Poe teaches:
wherein the apparatus comprises a single policy control function serving the network slice (in the case of a single PCF instance for the specific slice SLA parameter of associated network slice(s), the entire quota received will be allocated to the single PCF instance, Poe: Page 37, Lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Faccin-Young-3GPP in view of Poe in order to further modify comprising the apparatus with a single policy control function serving the network slice from the teachings of Poe.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it may provide improved network entities, allowing managing slice service level agreement information of a network slice in a slice-oriented mobile communication network in an efficient manner (Poe: Page 2, Lines 18-20).
Conclusion
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the
specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM 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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 February 25, 2026