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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the applicants' communication filed on June 29, 2023. In virtue of this communication, claims 10-13, 15-24, and 26-31 are currently presented in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on June 2, 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 19, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pub No.: US 2022/0264505 A1 (herein “Ianev”).
Claims 10 and 26
Consider claim 26, Ianev teaches an access and mobility management function (AMF) (see Ianev Fig. 4, note AMF 3) for deployment in a cellular communication network infrastructure, the AMF comprising:
one or more network interfaces for communicating with user equipment devices (UEs) over a radio access network (RAN) of the cellular communication network infrastructure (see Ianev Fig. 20, note network interface 2001);
one or more processors coupled with the one or more network interfaces (see Ianev Fig. 20, note processor 2002); and
non-transitory memory having instructions stored thereon, which (see Ianev Fig. 20, note memory 2003 with modules 2004), when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising:
receiving a registration request from a UE via the one or more network interfaces, the registration request indicating a requested network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) corresponding to a list of single-NSSAIs (S-NSSAIs) (see Ianev Fig. 4, [0077]-[0078] note AMF 3 receiving registration request 402 with requested NSSAI including S-NSSAI 1 and S-NSSAI 2);
determining, responsive to the registration request, a registration area (RA) as having a plurality of tracking areas (TAs), an allowed NSSAI corresponding to a first subset of the S-NSSAIs that are supported in all of the TAs of the RA, and a conditional NSSAI corresponding to a second subset of the S-NSSAIs that are supported in only a subset of the TAs of the RA, each particular S-NSSAI of the conditional NSSAI being associated with a respective re-registration condition that defines whether the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for access by the UE without re-registration in TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported (see Ianev Fig. 3B, Fig. 4, Fig. 11, [0074], [0076], [0079], [0108] note AMF determining the allowed NSSAI and conditionally allowed NSSAI is available in all of the TAs in a registration area and that every S-NSSAI included in the conditional NSSAI is available in at least one TA in the registration area where the UE may conditionally reselect to a cell supporting S-NSSAI 2 without having to execute an additional registration request procedure); and
communicating a registration response message to the UE via the one or more network interfaces to indicate at least the allowed NSSAI and the conditional NSSAI (see Ianev Fig. 4, [0080] note registration accept message including the registration area, TAI list, the allowed NSSAI, and the conditional NSSAI).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 26.
Claims 11 and 27
Consider claim 11, Ianev teaches wherein the determining the RA further comprises:
determining a present TA corresponding to a present location of the UE upon the receiving the registration request (see Ianev Fig. 1A, Fig. 9, [0065] note UE located in a cell belonging to a first tracking area identified by a first TAI) ;
determining, for each particular S-NSSAI of the second set of the S-NSSAIs, whether the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and whether the particular S-NSSAI is subject to Network Slice Admission Control (NSAC) (see Ianev Fig. 9, [0010], [0090], [0091] note determining whether the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI is current available in the particular cell); and
determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI of the second set of the S-NSSAIs based on whether the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and whether the particular S-NSSAI is subject to NSAC (see Ianev Fig. 9, [0010], [0076], [0091], [0108] notifying the application layer that the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI is available which allows the UE to perform reselection to the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 11.
Claims 12 and 28
Consider claim 12, Ianev teaches wherein the determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI comprises, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and is not subject to NSAC, determining the respective re-registration condition to define that the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for immediate session establishment by the UE in the present TA (see Ianev [0079] note the allowed NSSAI is available in all of the TAs in the registration area).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 12.
Claim 16
Consider claim 16, Ianev teaches wherein, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is not supported by the present TA, determining the respective re-registration condition to define that the particular S-NSSAI is not allowed for access by the UE without re-registration in TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported, regardless of whether the particular S-NSSAI is subject to NSAC (see Ianev [0009], [0080] note Rejected NSSAI).
Claim 18
Consider claim 18, Ianev teaches the determining the RA further comprises:
determining a present TA corresponding to a present location of the UE upon the receiving the registration request (see Ianev Fig. 1A, Fig. 9, [0065] note UE located in a cell belonging to a first tracking area identified by a first TAI);
determining, for each particular S-NSSAI of the second set of the S-NSSAIs, whether the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and whether the particular S-NSSAI is subject to Network Slice Specific Authentication and Authorization (NSSAA) (see Ianev Fig. 4, [0080] note the AMF may perform NSSAA procedure for the S-NSSAI configured in the conditional NSSAI); and
determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI of the second set of the S-NSSAIs based on whether the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and whether the particular S-NSSAI is subject to NSSAA (see Ianev Fig. 9, [0010], [0076], [0091], [0108] notifying the application layer that the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI is available which allows the UE to perform reselection to the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI in S-NSSAIs for which NSSAA is pending).
Claim 19
Consider claim 19, Ianev teaches wherein the determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI comprises, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and is not subject to NSSAA, determining the respective re-registration condition to define that the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for immediate session establishment by the UE in the present TA (see Ianev [0079] note the allowed NSSAI is available in all of the TAs in the registration area).
Claims 20 and 30
Consider claim 20, Ianev teaches wherein the determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI comprises, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and is subject to NSSAA:
determining whether the UE satisfies specific authentication and authorization parameters for the particular S-NSSAI as defined by the NSSAA (see Ianev [0080] note performing NSSAA procedure for the S-NSSAI configured in the conditional NSSAI);
determining the respective re-registration condition, responsive to determining that the specific authentication and authorization parameters are satisfied, to define that the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for immediate session establishment by the UE in the present TA (see Ianev Fig. 9, [0010], [0076], [0091], [0108] notifying the application layer that the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI is available which allows the UE to perform reselection to the conditionally allowed S-NSSAI); and
determining the respective re-registration condition, responsive to determining that the specific authentication and authorization parameters are not satisfied, to define that the particular S-NSSAI is not allowed for access by the UE in the present TA and that re-registration by the UE is required prior to accessing the particular S-NSSAI in other TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported (see Ianev [0020] note when the UE finds a cell that does not belong to the RA indicated by the AMF, the UE needs to reselect the cell and perform additional registration request procedure for the intended service).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 20.
Claim 22
Consider claim 22, Ianev teaches wherein, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is not supported by the present TA, determining the respective re-registration condition to define that the particular S-NSSAI is not allowed for access by the UE without re-registration in TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported, regardless of whether the particular S-NSSAI is subject to NSSAA (see Ianev [0009], [0080] note Rejected NSSAI).
Claims 24 and 31
Consider claim 24, Ianev teaches wherein: each respective re-registration condition is an explicit indication by the AMF of whether the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for access by the UE in TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported (see Ianev Fig. 3B, Fig. 4, Fig. 11, [0074], [0076], [0079], [0108] note AMF determining the allowed NSSAI and conditionally allowed NSSAI is available in all of the TAs in a registration area and that every S-NSSAI included in the conditional NSSAI is available in at least one TA in the registration area where the UE may conditionally reselect to a cell supporting S-NSSAI 2 without having to execute an additional registration request procedure); and the communicating comprises communicating the explicit indication with the registration response message (see Ianev Fig. 4, [0080] note registration accept message including the registration area, TAI list, the allowed NSSAI, and the conditional NSSAI).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev, and further in view of Pub No.: US 2023/0370950 A1 (herein “Shekhar”).
Claims 13 and 29
Consider claim 13, Ianev fails to teach wherein the determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI comprises, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is supported by the present TA and is subject to NSAC: determining whether an admission threshold associated with the NSAC is presently exceeded; determining the respective re-registration condition, responsive to determining that the admission threshold is presently not exceeded, to define that the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for immediate session establishment by the UE in the present TA; and determining the respective re-registration condition, responsive to determining that the admission threshold is presently exceeded, to define that the particular S-NSSAI is not allowed for access by the UE in the present TA and that re-registration by the UE is required prior to accessing the particular S-NSSAI in other TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported. Shekhar teaches enhanced network slice admission control procedures where the Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) can be configured with per network slice quota thresholds or limits regarding the maximum number of UEs that can be registered with a given network slice where when the quota is reached can reject the session establishment request (see Shekhar [0009], [0018], [0021], [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ianev to include the recited teaching of Shekhar. Such a modification would improve Ianev by enhancing network slice admission control procedures (see Shekhar [0009]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected for at least the same reason(s) set forth in claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 17, 21, and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 15 and 21, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render, singly or in combination, obvious the claimed limitations, especially "wherein the determining the respective re-registration condition for each particular S-NSSAI comprises, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is not supported by the present TA and is subject to NSAC: determining whether an admission threshold associated with the NSAC is presently exceeded; determining the respective re-registration condition, responsive to determining that the admission threshold is presently not exceeded, to define that the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for access by the UE without re-registration in TAs of the RA where the particular S- NSSAI is supported; and determining the respective re-registration condition, responsive to determining that the admission threshold is presently exceeded, to define that the particular S-NSSAI is not allowed for access by the UE in the present TA and that re-registration by the UE is required prior to accessing the particular S-NSSAI in other TAs of the RA where the particular S-NSSAI is supported."
Regarding claims 17 and 23, the prior art of record fails to anticipate or render, singly or in combination, obvious the claimed limitations, especially "wherein, responsive to determining that the particular S-NSSAI is not supported by the present TA and is not subject to NSAC, determining the respective re-registration condition to define whether the particular S-NSSAI is allowed for access by the UE without re-registration in TAs of the RA where the particular S- NSSAI is supported based on a local policy of the AMF."
Consequently, the disclosed claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims on behalf of the above-discussed reasons.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS C HAMMONDS whose telephone number is (571)270-3193. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, ALISON T. SLATER can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
/MARCUS HAMMONDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647