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 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2025/0159638 to Youn in view of U.S. 2025/0344119 to Suh and U.S. 2023/0379764 to Zhu.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Youn teaches a method of operating a wireless communication network to perform slice-based steering for User Equipment (UE), the method comprising:
a control plane detecting an event UE and responsively selecting a network slice to support a traffic type for the event UE (see the steps in Fig. 10, as described in sections [0379]-[0389] which show an AMF (which is the “control plane”) receiving a request from the UE for slices, where the AMF returns a list of slices associated with the UE which are broadcasted by the RAN).
Regarding the “slice supporting a traffic type”, although each slice ID in Youn is associated with a type of traffic, as this is not specifically mentioned in Youn, Suh is added to more explicitly teach “slice traffic types”.
In an analogous art, Suh teaches an AMF which receives a request from a UE which includes a request for slices. As described in sections [0040] to [0042] and as shown in the tables in sections [0046] and [0051], Suh explicitly teaches that each S-NSSAI includes a “slice service type” (SST) value.
Therefore, as both Youn and Suh teach an AMF (“control plane entity”) receiving a slice request from a UE and selecting a slice based on the request, and as Suh explicitly teaches that each slice S-NSSAI includes a slice service type of traffic ID, it would have been obvious to include the slice traffic type of Suh into Youn as both these references teach that it is important to give the UE an appropriate type of slice based on its requested slice, to allow for the desired type of traffic associated with that slice type.
Regarding the step of:
“the control plane selecting a Radio Access Network (RAN) to serve the event UE based on one or more Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the RAN and directing the RAN to broadcast a slice Identifier (ID) for the selected network slice” (see sections [0379]-[0389] of Youn and see sections [0092] to [0095] and [0162]-[0163] of Suh which teach that the AMF provides the slice information to the UE by instructing the RAN (BS) to broadcast the slice information via an SIB). In one interpretation of “KPI” (as in claim 3) if the KPI is the “slice ID” both Youn and Suh would teach this feature, however to show slice selection based on a more conventional interpretation of KPI, Zhu is added.
In an analogous art, Zhu teaches an AMF which receives slice requests from a UE. As described in section [0073], Zhu teaches that certain slices may be overloaded and the AMF may determine a slice as blocked and indicate this in the broadcasted list of slices in the SIB. In this case the loading is the “key performance indicator” (KPI).
Therefore, as all of Youn, Suh and Zhu teach an AMF receiving slice requests from a UE and selecting a RAN/slice based on the request (or KPI), and as Zhu teaches that a slice and/or RAN is selected based on KPI (congestion), it would have been obvious to modify Youn/Suh with this type of selection as all these references teach the conventionality of selecting slices/RANs based on the availability of a slice that may be provided by a RAN, to allow for the desired type of slice to be provided to the UE.
Therefore, regarding the last steps of clam 1 below:
“the RAN receiving the direction from the control plane and responsively broadcasting the slice ID for the event UE;
the event UE detecting the slice ID broadcast by the RAN, matching the slice ID broadcast by the RAN to a provisioned slice ID for the event UE, and in response, wirelessly attaching to the RAN; and
the event UE wirelessly exchanging user data that comprises the traffic type over the RAN” (as described above in the cited sections of the references, all of Youn, Suh and Zhu teach the RAN node broadcasting the slice IDs, and the UE selecting the appropriate or “matched” broadcasted slice and then subsequently exchanging data with the network using that slice.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, which recite “wherein the control plane selecting the RAN to serve the event UE based on the one or more KPIs comprises inputting the one or more KPIs into a data structure that correlates the one or more KPIs to an ability to support the slice type for the event UE and selecting the RAN based on an output from the data structure”, as described above, Zhu teaches “data structures” (see Figs. 4-10), which store/correlate KPIs to slices, and Youn and Suh teach an AMF selecting RANs and slices based on the KPI being the slice ID (as defined in claim 3 below).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, which recite “wherein the one or more KPIs comprise one of more of slice IDs, Radio Access Technology (RAT) type, band frequency, bandwidth, Physical Cell ID (PCI), Fifth Generation Quality-of-Service Identifier (5QI), maximum uplink bitrate, maximum downlink bitrate, and cell loading”, as described above in the rejection of claim 2, Youn and Suh teach that the KPI is the slice ID and Zhu teaches that the KPI is cell loading, as recited.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 2 and 9 above, and further in view of either one of U.S. Pubs. 2023/0031470 to Singh or 2022/0150723to Tsai.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, which recite “wherein the data structure comprises a machine learning algorithm trained to correlate the one or more KPIs to an ability to support the slice type for the event UE”, although Zhu teaches using KPI to select and/or support a slice using a data structure, and although Youn mentions AI in section [0074], either Singh or Tsai may be added for completeness.
In an analogous art, Singh and Tsai teach wireless networks which employ AI to maximize network efficiency. See for example section [0068], of Singh which teaches that ML algorithm uses slice availability which takes into account loading and KPI explicitly. See also dependent claim 5 of Tsai, which also teaches that ML algorithms consider load (KPI) when assigning slices.
Therefore, as Youn/Suh/Zhu teach using AI and KPI to selecting a RAN/slice, and as either Singh or Tsai teaches using ML with KPI to assign slices and/or RANs, it would have been obvious to modify Youn/Suh/Zhu with the ML and KPI inputs for the reasons as in Singh or Tsai, which are that assigning slices/RANs based on the loading and/or KPI increases network efficiency as using ML may avoid overloaded slices.
Claims 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pubs. 2021/0400448 to Adjakple and 2022/0240330 to Xiang.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, which recite “wherein the control plane detecting the event UE comprises: an Application Server (AS) transferring an event UE request that indicates the event UE for delivery to a Network Exposure Function (NEF); the NEF exposing the event UE request to the control plane; and the control plane receiving the event UE request and responsively detecting the event UE”, although Youn, Suh and Zhu teach the control plane and the NEF, as they do not explicitly teach a server transmitting a UE request to the NEF, Adjakple is added for the server and for the feature that the UE requests the event via the control plane, Xiang is added.
In an analogous art, Adjakple teaches a system which provides control plane signaling through an NEF. As described in sections [0099]-[0100], Adjakple teaches that a UE may trigger an event (as recited) which uses an application server (V2X Application Server), which subsequently transmits a request on the control plane to invoke an API call to the NEF (which then “exposes the event to the control plane” as recited). Also in an analogous art, Xiang teaches using control plane connections to the NEF. See section [0117], which teaches that the UE uses an API to the NEF to request a connection (which is the recited “event UE request”).
Therefore, as all of Youn, Suh and Zhu teach NEFs and the control plane, and as Adjakple teaches that the NEF receives an event request from a server on the control plane and Xiang teaches the UE instigating the event on the control plane (also to the NEF), it would have been obvious to modify Youn/Suh/Zhu with the NEF and control plane signaling of Adjakple and Xiang, as both Adjakple and Xiang teach the conventionality of using the NEF to access the control plane, as would be desired.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, which recite “wherein the control plane detecting the event UE comprises: the event UE transferring an Application Programming Interface (API) call to a network API; the network API receiving the API call, determining the event UE is authorized for preferred treatment; and notifying the control plane; and the control plane receiving the notification and responsively detecting the event UE”, as described above, see Adjakple and see Xiang for the API call sent from the UE on the control plane, see section [0116] of Xiang for “UE authorization”.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Pubs. 2024/0373481 to Ianev.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, which recite “further comprising: the RAN indicating RAN capacity data to the control plane; the control plane receiving the indication and determining when the RAN capacity data triggers a handover threshold; when the RAN capacity data triggers the handover threshold, the control plane selecting another RAN to serve the event UE based on one or more KPIs for the other RAN, directing the other RAN to broadcast the slice ID for the selected network slice, and directing the RAN to stop broadcasting the slice ID for the selected network slice; the RAN removing the slice ID from its broadcast; the other RAN broadcasting the slice ID for the event UE; the event UE detecting the RAN is no longer broadcasting the slice ID, detecting the slice ID broadcast by the other RAN, matching the slice ID broadcast by the other RAN to the provisioned slice ID for the event UE, and in response, handing over to the other RAN; and the event UE wirelessly exchanging user data that comprises the traffic type with the user plane over the other RAN”, regarding the handover, see Figs. 16-17 and sections [0396]-[0397] of Youn, which teach the base station (RAN node) indicating to the AMF, that a handover is being instigated to another RAN node as the requested or desired slice is not supported by the current RAN node. Therefore, Ianev is added to teach a handover threshold and the features which are related to stopping a RAN node from broadcasting a slice which is now overloaded, as recited.
In an analogous art, Ianev teaches an AMF which receives slice requests from a UE. As described in section [0027] and [0331]-[0337], Ianev teaches that when certain slices are overloaded the AMF may determine to stop broadcasting the availability of those slices in the broadcasted list of slices. Ianev also teaches that the AMF communicates with the RAN nodes to suspend the broadcasting of the overloaded slice and also compares the load to a threshold (which is the recited “handover threshold”).
Therefore, as Youn/Suh/Zhu teach an AMF receiving a slice request from a UE and performing a handover to another RAN node if the slice is unavailable, and as Ianev explicitly teaches using a handover threshold for each slice and instructing a RAN node to stop broadcasting that overloaded slice, it would have been obvious to modify Youn/Suh/Zhu with the handover threshold and suspension of broadcasting a slice, as Ianev teaches the conventionality and reasons for this, as it is desirable to avoid overloaded slices/connections and to direct the UE to another RAN node, as this ensures quality communications for all the UEs in the network.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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
Prosecution Insights