DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 09/05/2025 and 09/04/2025 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 12 are amended.
Claims 4 and 11 are cancelled
No new claim is/are added.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 and 12-13 are pending for examination.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments (remark pages 6-9), filed on 09/05/2025, with respect to claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 and 12-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection below which better address the claimed invention as amended.
This Office Action is made Final.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US 20240292281 A1), hereinafter “Ianev”, in view of Tiwari et al. (US 20240298248 A1), hereinafter “Tiwari”.
Per claim 1 and 8:
Regarding claim 8, Ianev teaches ‘A network entity including a session management function (SMF) entity and a packet data network gateway (PGW-C) entity’ (Ianev: [FIG.3]: :”SMF/ PGW-C”); ‘comprising: ‘at least one processor’ (Ianev: [0428]: “processors”); ‘at least one memory’ (Ianev: [0428]: “memories”); ‘communicatively coupled to the at least one processor’ (this is implied); ‘storing instructions’ (Ianev: [0431]: “software instructions stored in memory”); ‘executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the network entity to’ (this is implied);
‘identify a network slice which is subject to a network slice admission control (NSAC) in a 5th generation system (5GS), wherein an evolved packet system (EPS) counting is not required for the network slice’ (Ianev: [0448]: “EPS counting is not required for a network slice … The SMF+PGW-C is configured with the information indicating the network slice is subject to NSAC only in 5GS”);
‘in case that the NSAC for the network slice is not performed in the EPS and a user equipment (UE) with a protocol data unit (PDU) session moves from a 5th generation core system (5GC) to an evolved packet core (EPC)’ (Ianev: [FIG.3]: step 1: “The UE has active PDU session(s) over 5GS”; step 3-14: PDU session moves from 5GC to EPC; [0293]: “The ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter set to “not supported” status indicates that the SMF+PGW-C is not capable for Network Slice Admission Control in EPS or had not yet enforced (or not yet performed) the Network Slice Admission Control in EPS for the S-NSSAI associated with the received SM Context ID”);
‘transmit, to a network slice admission control function (NSACF) entity, a request for decreasing a number of the UE and a number of the PDU session for the network slice associated with a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)’ (Ianev: [0057]: “the SMF+PGW-C interacts with the NSACF to decrease at least one of the number of UEs per network slice and the number of PDU Sessions per network slice”; [FIG.3]: step 16: “SMF/PGW-C” to “NSACF”: Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailableCheckUpdate req”; [0311]-[0313]: “the SMF+PGW-C may decide whether to send the “Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF to decrement the number of PDU Sessions being established for the S-NSSAI … If the ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter received in step 15 indicates “not supported” status, the SMF+PGW-C would send the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF”; [0315]: “The SMF+PGW-C may include an indication parameter to the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req. The indication parameter indicates that this decrement request is due to handover to the EPS”; [0448]: “the network slice is subject to NSAC only in 5GS”; transmit request to decrease a number of PDU session for the network slice if the network slice is subject to NSAC only in 5GS; [0322]: “the AMF may decide whether to send the Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF to decrement the number of UEs being registered for the S-NSSAI”). However, Ianev fails to expressly teach SMF/PGW-C transmit a request to NASCF to decrease a number of the UE;
‘wherein, in case that the NSAC for the network slice is performed in the EPS, the number of the PDU session remains’ (Ianev: [0292]: “The ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter set to “supported” status indicates that the SMF+PGW-C is capable for Network Slice Admission Control in EPS and had already enforced (or performed) the Network Slice Admission Control in EPS for the S-NSSAI associated with the received SM Context ID”; [0312]: “If the ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter received in step 15 indicates “supported” status, the SMF+PGW-C does not send the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF”; the number of the PDU session remains since SMF+PGW-C does not send the update request to NSACF).
However, Tiwari in the same field of endeavor teaches SMF/PGW-C transmit a request to NASCF to decrease a number of the UE (Tiwari: [FIG.4]: step 6: “SMF/PGW-C”->”NSACF””: “Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req (UE_ID, S-NSSAI, update flag = decrease)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tiwari’s teaching with that of Ianev in order to update the number of UE registered to the network slice (Tiwari: [0012]: “a core network node includes means for requesting a network node for a network slice management to update the number of user equipment (UE) registered to the network slice”).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the method implemented by the network entity of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Per claim 2 and 9:
Regarding claim 9, combination of Ianev and Tiwari teaches the network entity of claim 8 (discussed above).
Ianev teaches ‘identify the PDU session which is handed over from the 5GC to the EPC’ (Ianev: [FIG.3]: step 1 to 14: PDU session handover from the 5GC to the EPC; [0315]: “The SMF+PGW-C may include an indication parameter to the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req. The indication parameter indicates that this decrement request is due to handover to the EPS”).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the method implemented by the network entity of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Per claim 5 and 12:
Regarding claim 12, Ianev teaches ‘A network slice admission control function (NSACF) entity in a wireless communication system’ (Ianev: [FIG.3]: “NSACF”); ‘the NSACF entity comprising: at least one processor’ (Ianev: [0428]: “processors”); ‘at least one memory’ (Ianev: [0428]: “memories”); ‘communicatively coupled to the at least one processor’ (this is implied); ‘storing instructions’ (Ianev: [0431]: “software instructions stored in memory”); ‘executable by the at least one processor individually or in any combination to cause the network entity to’ (this is implied);
‘receive, from network entity including a session management function (SMF) entity and a packet data network gateway (PGW-C) entity, a request for decreasing a number of a user equipment (UE} and a number of protocol data unit (PDU) session for the network slice associated with a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)’ (Ianev: [0057]: “the SMF+PGW-C interacts with the NSACF to decrease at least one of the number of UEs per network slice and the number of PDU Sessions per network slice”; [FIG.3]: step 16: “SMF/PGW-C” to “NSACF”: Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailableCheckUpdate req”; [0311]-[0313]: “the SMF+PGW-C may decide whether to send the “Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF to decrement the number of PDU Sessions being established for the S-NSSAI … If the ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter received in step 15 indicates “not supported” status, the SMF+PGW-C may send the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF”; would receive request to decrease a number of PDU session for the network slice; [0322]: “the AMF may decide whether to send the Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF to decrement the number of UEs being registered for the S-NSSAI”). However, Ianev fails to expressly teach NASCF receive a request from SMF/PGW-C to decrease a number of the UE;
‘in case that a network slice admission control (NSAC) for the network slice is not performed in an evolved packet system (EPS) and the UE with the PDU session moves from a 5th generation core network (5GC) to an evolved packet core (EPC)’ (Ianev: [FIG.3]: step 1-step 14, PDU session moves from 5GC to EPC; [0315]: “The SMF+PGW-C may include an indication parameter to the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req. The indication parameter indicates that this decrement request is due to handover to the EPS”; [0293]: “The ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter set to “not supported” status indicates that the SMF+PGW-C is not capable for Network Slice Admission Control in EPS or had not yet enforced (or not yet performed) the Network Slice Admission Control in EPS for the S-NSSAI associated with the received SM Context ID”);
‘decrease the number of PDU session for the network slice associated with the S-NSSAI, wherein the network slice is subject to the NSAC in a 5th generation system (5GS)’ (Ianev: [0057]: “the SMF+PGW-C interacts with the NSACF to decrease at least one of the number of UEs per network slice and the number of PDU Sessions per network slice”; [0445]: “The NSACF determines to decrease the current number”);
‘wherein an EPS counting is not required for the network slice’ (Ianev: [0448]: “If EPS counting is not required for a network slice … the network slice is subject to NSAC only in 5GS”);
‘wherein the number of the PDU session remains in case that the NSAC for the network slice is performed in the EPS’ (Ianev: [0292]: “The ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter set to “supported” status indicates that the SMF+PGW-C is capable for Network Slice Admission Control in EPS and had already enforced (or performed) the Network Slice Admission Control in EPS for the S-NSSAI associated with the received SM Context ID”; [0312]: “If the ‘NSAC supported in EPS’ parameter received in step 15 indicates “supported” status, the SMF+PGW-C does not send the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req to the NSACF”; the number of the PDU session remains since SMF+PGW-C does not send the update request to NSACF).
However, Tiwari teaches NASCF receive a request from SMF/PGW-C to decrease a number of the UE (Tiwari: [FIG.4]: step 6: “SMF/PGW-C”->”NSACF””: “Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req (UE_ID, S-NSSAI, update flag = decrease)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tiwari’s teaching with that of Ianev in order to update the number of UE registered to the network slice (Tiwari: [0012]: “a core network node includes means for requesting a network node for a network slice management to update the number of user equipment (UE) registered to the network slice”).
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the method implemented by the NSACF entity of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above).
Per claim 6 and 13:
Regarding claim 13, combination of Ianev and Tiwari teaches the NSACF entity of claim 12 (discussed above).
Ianev teaches ‘wherein the PDU session is handed over 5GC to EPC’ (Ianev: [FIG.3]: step 1-14: the PDU session is handed over 5GC to EPC; [0315]: “The SMF+PGW-C may include an indication parameter to the Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckUpdate req. The indication parameter indicates that this decrement request is due to handover to the EPS”).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the method implemented by the NSACF entity of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462