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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 AND 5-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 AND 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev US Patent Pub No.: 2022/0369207 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ianev’ and further in view of Velev et al US patent Pub. No.: 2026/0143342, hereinafter, ‘Velev’.
Consider Claim 1, and as applied to Claims 4-6 (Structural limitations are illustrated in figures 13-16) Ianev teaches communication control method comprising: determining, at a core network apparatus (e.g., see SMN in at least figure 1), a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a network slice (e.g., “enforces access and service restriction in a Network Slice when the Network Slice parameters boundaries have been reached” – see at least abstract, 0016-0021, and 216-0223 ); and transmitting, at the core network apparatus, network slice restriction information related to the network slice to a user equipment, wherein the network slice restriction information includes a network slice identifier identifying the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition (e.g., see at least figure 1 and 0060 - 8) The SMN 720 answers ).
However, Ianev does not specifically teach setting a time condition for specifying a time during which the use of the network slice is restricted; and upon determining that the time expires, transmitting, by the core network apparatus to the user equipment, a CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND message to update the restrictive condition.
In analogous art, Velev teaches in paragraph 0036 that the “AMF may determine and signal the unavailability timer, during which the UE is not to re-try to register to the rejected S-NSSA (i.e., restrict).” In 0099 “the AMF 210 may send NAS MM UE configuration update command message including a new list of rejected S-NSSAI(s) excluding the associated S-NSSAI #X. If the UE 205 is in connection management (CM)-IDLE state (or mobile initiated connection only (MICO) mode, i.e., unreachable currently for mobile terminated services), then the AMF 210 waits until the UE 205 moves to the CM-Connected state to trigger the UE update. Upon reception of the NAS message from the AMF 210, the UE 205 removes the S-NSSAI from the list of rejected S-NSSAI and, if corresponding unavailability timer is running, the UE 205 deletes the timer. (i.e., at this time the configuration update is sent. The time in which the AMF validated the previous configuration expired, thus the update).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try setting a time condition for specifying a time during which the use of the network slice is restricted; and upon determining that the time expires, transmitting, by the core network apparatus to the user equipment, a CONFIGURATION UPDATE COMMAND message to update the restrictive condition.
The Examiner respectfully suggest a manner to overcome the rejection potentially is to 1) specify the restrictive condition and 2) specify the “timer” (i.e., is this an abstract time or specific physical timer ?).
Consider Claim 2, Ianev teaches the communication control method according to claim 1, the communication control method further comprising determining, at the user equipment, whether to avoid using the network slice, based on the network slice restriction information (i.e., as best understood by the Examiner this would be based on the rejection to use the network slice as outlined in at least figure 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev US Patent Pub No.: 2022/0369207 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ianev’ in view of Stojanovski et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0007182 A1, hereinafter, ‘Stojanovski’
Consider Claims 3, Ianev teaches NAS messaging but does not specifically teach wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the user equipment comprises transmitting, to the user equipment, a NAS message including the network slice restriction information, and wherein the NAS message is a Registration Accept message or a DEREGISTRATION REQUEST message.
In analogous art, Stojanovski teaches “dedicated NAS signaling after transmission of the registration request (such as in a Registration Accept Message). The UE may use the public key to encrypt parts of the Initial NAS message (Registration Request, Service Request or Deregistration Request).” e.g., see at least 0041.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the user equipment comprises transmitting, to the user equipment, a NAS message including the network slice restriction information, and wherein the NAS message is a Registration Accept message or a DEREGISTRATION REQUEST message for the purpose of facilitating signaling around UE registration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892
Yang et al. (US 20220217593) Yang teaches a communication control method (para 5: a
communication method and apparatus, to provide a rate limiting manner that can be
applied to a 5G scenario; fig 3-11) comprising: determining, at a base station (para 156: the source base station determine, based on the measurement result, that the UE needs to be handed over to the target base station), a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict
use of a network slice (para 158: the handover request message may include the network slice configuration information, where the information is used to indicate a maximum data rate provided by each of n network slices for the UE; here, the maximum data rate provided by the network slice is considered restriction condition of the network slice); and transmitting, at the base station, restriction information related to the network slice to a core network apparatus, a certain base station other than the base station, or a user equipment (para 155: step 101: a source base station sends a first message to a target base station, where the first message includes
network slice configuration information; fig 3 shows the message sent to target base station, fig 10 shows the message sent to AMF (core network apparatus)).
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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights