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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over document “D1” (“Qualcomm Incorporated”) in the filed written opinion in view of U.S. Pub. 2020/0351645 to Jin and U.S. Pub. 2023/0052699 to Ninglekhu.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, which recite “an apparatus comprising a core network function, the apparatus further comprising:
a transmitter that transmits a request for radio capabilities of a user equipment;
a receiver that receives a response to the request for the radio capabilities of the user equipment; and
a processor that determines at least one allowed network slice, at least one rejected network slice, or a combination thereof based on the radio capabilities of the user equipment;
wherein the transmitter transmits a configuration message to the user equipment, and the configuration message indicates the at least one allowed network slice, the at least one rejected network slice, or the combination thereof”,
as described in the written opinion (submitted as prior art on 1-17-23 in the instant application), the Qualcomm document D1, is shown to include these recited features (see pages 4-6). See also the only figure in D1 (Figure 4.2.8a-1 UE Capability Match Request on page 7) which shows the AMF sending the initial request for UE capabilities to the NG-RAN node. As the D1 document is not a patent document per se, and does not show the recited structures, Jin and Ninglekhu are added.
In an analogous art, Jin teaches a system which requests and receives UE capabilities. See for example, Fig. 1H, which shows the communications between UE, NG RAN node and core network (AMF recited “core network function”) as in D1.
Therefore, regarding the first two steps of claim 1, which recite:
a transmitter that transmits a request for radio capabilities of a user equipment (see Fig. 1H, steps 1h-25/1h-35 as described in sections [0148] to [0149] of Jin, where Fig. 2I shows structures as described in section [0293]-[0296], which include a backhaul communicator 2I-30, which is a “transmitter” used to transmit request for UE capability messages between the other network nodes, such as the NG RAN);
a receiver that receives a response to the request for the radio capabilities of the user equipment (see Fig. 1H, steps 1h-40/1h-50 as described in section [0149], where Fig. 2I shows the structures as described in section [0293]-[0296], which include backhaul communicator 2I-30, which is a “receiver” used to receive the UE capability response messages from the other network nodes, such as the NG RAN).
Therefore, as D1 shows the AMF transmitting and receiving UE capabilities, as both D1 and Jin teach the core network function AMF determining UE capabilities for slice selection etc. and as Jin shows the required structures needed for communication between network nodes, it would have been obvious to modify D1 to include the recited/shown structures of Jin, as these structures would be obvious and/or necessary to include in D1 to allow for communication between the network nodes for the UE.
Regarding the last steps of claim 1, which recite:
“a processor that determines at least one allowed network slice, at least one rejected network slice, or a combination thereof based on the radio capabilities of the user equipment;
wherein the transmitter transmits a configuration message to the user equipment, and the configuration message indicates the at least one allowed network slice, the at least one rejected network slice, or the combination thereof”, as D1 does not teach the recited “processor”, Ninglekhu is added.
In an analogous art, Ninglekhu teaches a system which receives UE capabilities at the AMF (recited “core network function”). As shown in Figs. 4, 5B, 11 and 17 the AMF responds to UE capabilities with messages which indicate slices that are accepted and/or rejected, where these slices are also associated with “operating frequency bands” OFBs. See for example, sections [0169], [0192], [0231] and [0260]. See also the processor 91 in Fig. 8F, as described in section [0428], where apparatus 90 is described as being any core network node (such as the AMF).
Therefore, as D1 and Ninglekhu teach the core network device/function AMF determining UE capabilities for slice selection etc. and as Ninglekhu teaches a processor in the AMF determining appropriate slices and then transmitting a message indicating the allowed/rejected slices to the UE, it would have been obvious to modify D1/Jin with the processor and messages of Ninglekhu , as some form of processor is needed in the AMF in order to determine the appropriate slices, so connections may be efficiently established and/or unallowed slices should not be attempted to be used.
Regarding claim 1 “An apparatus for performing a core network function, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to:
transmit a request for radio capabilities of a user equipment (UE);
receive a response to the request for the radio capabilities of the UE;
determine at least one rejected network slice, based on the radio capabilities of the UE; and
transmit a configuration message to the UE, wherein the configuration message indicates the at least one rejected network slice and at least one reject cause value associated with at least one reason for rejection”.
Regarding the feature of rejection cause, the last sentence on page 3 of D1 (6.X.3.1) teaches “the AMF shall reject the UE Registration and shall include in the rejection message the list of Rejected S-NSSAIs, each of them with the appropriate rejection cause value”.
Regarding the amendment to claims 1 and 16, which now recites “transmit a configuration message to the UE, wherein the configuration message indicates at least one allowed network slice, the at least one rejected network slice and at least one reject cause value associated with at least one reason for rejection”, see page 3 of D1 (6.X.2), the last sentence of that section which teaches “the AMF modifies the Allowed NSSAI accordingly before providing it to the UE”, where the NSSAIs identify allowed slices, as recited. Therefore, this new feature appears in D1.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, which recite “wherein the core network function comprises an access and mobility management function (AMF), or a network slice selection function (NSSF), or both”, see for example, the teachings in D1, section [0173] of Jin and Figs. 5B and 13 of Ninglekhu (as in section [0068], [0166]-[0167], [0188]-[0192]), which teach that the core network function device is the AMF, as recited.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive a registration request message from the UE, and the registration request message triggers transmission of the request for the radio capabilities of the UE”, see for example, the cited portions of D1 described in the written opinion, and see section [0148] of Jin, which teaches the initial message from the UE is a registration request message, which then triggers the capabilities message sent to the UE, as recited.
Regarding claims 4 and 19, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to determine that the radio capabilities of the UE are required based on a set of network slices operating in specific frequency bands and prior to transmission of the request for the radio capabilities of the UE”, see the cited portions of D1 (page 7) in the written opinion, and see sections [0073], [0078] of Ninglekhu, where the network has prestored associations between frequency bands and slices, which are “stored prior to transmission of the request for the radio capabilities of the user equipment”, as recited.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the request to a radio access network (RAN)”, as described above, all of D1, Jin and Ninglekhu teach the core network device (AMF) transmitting messages to the RAN base station node for transmission to the UE, as is conventional.
Regarding claim 6, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the request to the UE”, as described above, all of D1, Jin and Ninglekhu teach the core network device (AMF) transmitting messages to UE (via the RAN base station node for transmission to the UE), as is conventional.
Regarding claim 7, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the request to the user equipment via a non-access stratum (NAS) protocol layer”, see for example, sections [0148] and [0153] of Jin, which teach (using the non-access stratum protocol layer for the request message) “the core network informs the base station of having no UE capability for the UE and may deliver an INITIAL CONTEXT SETUP REQUEST message (NAS message) requesting the UE capability”.
Regarding claim 8, which recites “wherein the radio capabilities of the UE comprise a list of frequency bands supported, or a list of frequency band combinations supported, or both”, see sections [0077], [0119], and [0186] to [0196] of Ninglekhu, which teach the AMF and UE sending indications (lists) of frequency band OFBs supported.
Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein the configuration message comprises an indication indicating the at least one rejected network slice and associated cause information indicating that the rejection is due to a frequency incapability”, see for example, section [0194] of Ninglekhu, which teaches “The cause code indicates that the slices were rejected because they are not supported in the current (operating frequency bands) OFB”.
Regarding claim 10, which recites “A user equipment (UE), comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a core network function, a request for radio capabilities of the UE;
determine the radio capabilities of the UE; and
transmit a response to the request for the radio capabilities of the UE; and
receive a configuration message that indicates at least one allowed network slice, at least one rejected network slice and at least one reject cause value associated with at least one reason for rejection.
as above, see all of D1, Jin and Ninglekhu, which show the user equipment “UE”, and see Fig. 2H of Jin, as described in sections [0285] to [0291], which show and teach the recited structures of a conventional UE, such as a receiver, transmitter and the processor/controller, which would perform the features of claim 10 (see the rejection of claim 1 above for the mapping of the similar steps/amendments as recited in claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive the request for the radio capabilities of the UE equipment at a radio access network entity (RAN)”, see all of D1, Jin and Ninglekhu, which show the UE receiving the request, as recited.
Regarding claim 12, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to extract the radio capabilities of the UE from a full set of available radio capabilities”, as the UE only supports certain OFBs, these supported capabilities are “extracted” from the other “full set of frequency capabilities”, as recited.
Regarding claim 13, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive the request for the radio capabilities of the UE via a non-access stratum (NAS) protocol layer”, see for example, sections [0148] and [0153] of Jin, which teach using the non-access stratum protocol layer for the request message, as recited.
Regarding claim 15, which recites “wherein the radio capabilities of the UE comprise a list of frequency bands supported, or a list of frequency band combinations supported, or both”, see for example, sections [0019], [0175] and [0186] to [0196] of Ninglekhu, which teach the UE informing the core network (AMF), its operating frequency band (OFB), as recited.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2016/0374050 to Prasad.
Regarding claim 14, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit a request from a non-access stratum (NAS) layer to an access stratum (AS) layer requesting the radio capabilities”, as described above, D1 (page 5), Jin and Ninglekhu teach using the NAS layer for capability messages and the AS layer for the communications, so Prasad is added.
In an analogous art, Prasad teaches a UE with the conventional protocol stack. As shown in Fig. 13 and as described in section [0137], Prasad teaches that information is exchanged (using an internal interface) between the AS and NAS layers of the UE, in order to define capabilities and establish connections, as each layer performs different functions.
Therefore, as D1/Jin and Ninglekhu teach using the NAS for signaling control messages capabilities between UE and AMF, and the UE using the AS layer for actually establishing and performing the communications to the network nodes, and as Prasad teaches that the exchange of capability information between these layers is needed to establish communications, it would have been obvious to modify D1/Jin/Ninglekhu to exchange information between the NAS/AS layers, as each layer is responsible for different UE functions and each layer needs to be aware of the other layers capabilities and/or capabilities negotiated with the network on another layer, as is conventional.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646