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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/09/23 has been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claims 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (WO 2022001318, hereinafter Zhu) in view of Kumar et al. (US 20200296569, hereinafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a method of handling rejection and admission of a terminal device to a core network, CN, of a telecommunication system, the method comprising or initiating the steps of:
receiving a terminal device registration request indicative of the terminal device requesting access to the telecommunication system (Page 38: Lines 6-8; The AMF receives a registration request from the terminal device);
sending, to a network slice selection function, NSSF, of the CN, a CN registration request message indicative of the terminal device registration request (Page 38: Lines 40-43; The AMF sends to the NSSF, first radio resource information, the identifier of the network slice to which the terminal device requests access, and first location of the terminal device), and wherein the CN registration request message is further indicative of at least one network slice of the telecommunication system (Page 38: Lines 40-43; The message from the AMF to the NSSF includes the identifier of the network slice to which the terminal device requests access);
receiving, from the NSSF, a CN response message indicative of rejection or admission to at least one network slice regarding the terminal device based on the identifier of the terminal device (Page 43: Lines 26-37; The NSSF sends a message to the UE indicating the request to access one or more network slices has been refused; Admission has been given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”);
and selectively initiating registration of the terminal device, wherein the selectivity depends on whether the CN response message indicates rejection or admission to at least one network slice regarding the terminal device (Page 44: Lines 20-22; When the set of slices allowed is null, the AMF sends a registration rejection message to the terminal device to reject the device from registering; Admission has been given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”), wherein the selectively initiating registration of the terminal device comprises:
sending a registration rejection message to the terminal device when the received CN response message is indicative of rejection of the terminal device (Page 44: Lines 20-22; If the set of allowed slices is null, the AMF sends to the terminal registration rejection message);
and sending a registration acceptance message to the terminal device when the received CN response message is indicative of admission of the terminal device to at least one network slice and when at least one of authentication, registration and session management, SM, policy control of the terminal device is successfully performed by an access and mobility function, AMF, of the CN (No patentable weight given due to the above optional language “CN response message indicative of rejection or admission” and “CN response message indicates rejection or admission”).
Zhu does not disclose the CN registration message comprising an identifier of a terminal device and receiving from the NSSF, a response based on the identifier of the terminal device.
Kumar, however, discloses slice admission/selection based on a UE identifier (Par. 115: Lines 20-32; The UE can send a registration request to the AMF which includes a UE identifier; Par. 115: Lines 43-46; After receiving the request the AMF can determine what slices can be provided; Par. 115: Lines 52-59; The AMF can send to the NSSF, a request that includes the capabilities of the devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zhu with Kumar so that Zhu’s CN registration message additionally includes a terminal identifier, and the slice-admission decision is made based on that identifier as taught by Kumar. Kumar teaches including UE identifiers in registration signaling to enable subscriber-specific slice handling, and applying this well-known practice to Zhu’s slice selection flow would predictably improve per-UE admission control—thus the modification represents a routine design choice rather than hindsight reconstruction.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein the terminal device registration request comprises an indication of at least one of:
at least one network slice (Page 38: Lines 40-43; The message from the AMF to the NSSF includes the identifier of the network slice to which the terminal device requests access);
and a slice and/or service type, SST, of at least one network slice (No patentable weight given due to the optional language “at least one of”).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein the terminal device registration request comprises network slice selection assistance information, NSSAI (Par. 38: Lines 9-15; The registration request message may include the requested NSSAI that may include one S-NSSAI or multiple S-NSSAIs).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, neither Zhu nor Kumar explicitly states “priority indicator,” however Kumar teaches that UE registration requests include UE identity values (SUPI, GUTI, PEI) that enable the network to retrieve subscription data, determine service type (eMBB, URLLC, mMTC), and apply differing mobility and latency policies (Par. 115: Lines 20-32; The UE can send a registration request to the AMF which includes a UE identifier; Par. 115: Lines 6-26; The request also includes the type of service the device wants. Different service types use their own slices and have different mobility/latency/reliability requirements. This is used to associate the UE with a particular service/slice category and hence, a priority class; The different requirements correspond to different priority levels). Such service-type driven treatment corresponds to differing priority levels. Thus, Kumar teaches using UE identifiers to derive priority of the UE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the terminal device identifier used in Zhu to additionally serve as an indicator of the UE’s priority, as taught by Kumar, so that the core network can consistently apply service- and slice-specific mobility/latency policies based on the UE’s identity. Doing so would merely implement a known use of UE identifiers (associating the UE with a service/slice-dependent priority class) in the slice-admission context of Zhu to achieve the predictable benefit of differentiated treatment for different UEs, and thus constitutes nothing more than a routine design choice well within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 5, Zhu does not disclose wherein the identifier of the terminal device comprises at least one of a subscription permanent identifier, SUPI, and an international mobile subscription identity, IMSI.
Kumar, however, discloses wherein the identifier of the terminal device comprises at least one of a subscription permanent identifier, SUPI, and an international mobile subscription identity, IMSI (Par. 115: Lines 20-32; The UE can send a registration request to the AMF which includes a UE identifier such as a SUPI; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “at least one of”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the “identifier of the terminal device” in Zhu using the standard 5G subscriber identifiers (SUPI) taught by Kumar, since this is a well-known UE identifiers already used in registration signaling to retrieve subscription data and control slice/service access. Doing so would merely substitute one known form of UE identifier for another in Zhu’s registration and slice-handling procedure to ensure compatibility with existing 5G core procedures, which is a routine design choice yielding predictable results and thus obvious to the ordinary artisan.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein the CN registration request message comprises a tracking area identity, TAI, associated with the terminal device and/or with the at least one network slice indicated in the terminal device registration request (Page 38: Lines 40-43; The AMF sends to the NSSF, first radio resource information, the identifier of the network slice to which the terminal device requests access, and first location of the terminal device; Page. 5: Last Paragraph; The first location information corresponds to a TAI; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “and/or”)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, no patentable weight is being given. The rejection of claim 1 is based on an alternative of the “or” clause (i.e., CN response message indicative of admission). Claim 8, however, further limits claim 1 to the CN rejection response message branch which was given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 9, Zhu discloses wherein the registration acceptance message comprises an indication of the least one network slice to which the terminal device is admitted (Page 43: Lines 22-25; The AMF sends to the terminal a registration accept message along with the identification of the allowed network slice).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 9, no patentable weight is being given. The rejection of claim 9 is based on an alternative of the “at least one of” clause (i.e., the branch in which a registration reject message is sent). Claim 11, however, further limits claim 9 to the admission branch which was given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1, Zhu discloses wherein the method is performed by at least one access and mobility function, AMF, of the CN (Page 2: Summary of the Invention: Par. 3; The CN device may be an AMF).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (WO 2022001318, hereinafter Zhu) in view of Kumar et al. (US 20200296569, hereinafter Kumar) in further view of Sugawara (WO 2021090878).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Zhu in view of Kumar disclose a terminal registration request message that includes NSSAI (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1).
Zhu in view of Kumar do not disclose wherein the terminal device registration request further comprises an indication of a slice differentiator, SD, of the least one network slice.
Sugawara, however, discloses the composition of S-NSSAI information (Page 16: Last Paragraph: Lines 1-3; The S-NSSAI may be composed of both SST (Slice/Service Type and SD).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the NSSAI in Zhu (in view of Kumar) to include the standard S-NSSAI composition taught by Sugawara (SST + SD), so that the terminal registration request carries both SST and SD. Doing so would merely apply the known, standardized S-NSSAI structure to the existing NSSAI-based registration procedure to enable finer differentiation among slices, a predictable use of SD that would have involved nothing more than routine design choice.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648