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
Claims 1-9 received on 1/29/2024 have been examined, of which claims 1, 8-9 are independent.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “NGAP” without reciting full form at the first recitation. The examiner suggests to amend the limitation as “Next Generation Application Protocol (NGAP)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5-6 of co-pending Application No. 18425903 (claim date 1/29/2024). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of the application recites the limitations of base station transmitting network slice restriction information to the UE, where the claim 1 of co-pending application recites the similar limitations from UE side. Similarly, claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation of base station informing about the network slice information, and UE inquiring further information, where the response is transmitted using random access procedure. The mapping is further shown in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application 18425884
Co-pending application 18425903
1. A communication control method comprising: determining, at a base station, a restrictive condition that is a condition configured to restrict use of a 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.
5. The communication control method according to claim 1, wherein the transmitting the restriction information comprises transmitting network slice restriction information as the restriction information to the user equipment, the network slice restriction information comprising a network slice identifier configured to identify the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition.
1. A communication control method comprising: receiving, at a user equipment, network slice restriction information from a base station or a core network apparatus, the network slice restriction information being related to a network slice to be provided with a restrictive condition, wherein the restrictive condition is a condition restricting use of the network slice, and wherein the network slice restriction information comprises an identifier identifying the network slice and information indicating the restrictive condition.
6. The communication control method according to claim 1, wherein the transmitting the restriction information comprises broadcasting information, as the restriction information, indicating that the network slice is provided with the restrictive condition, and the communication control method further comprising: receiving, at the base station, an inquiry about the restrictive condition from the user equipment; and transmitting, at the base station, network slice restriction information as a response to the inquiry to the user equipment, the network slice restriction information comprising a network slice identifier configured to identify the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition.
5. The communication control method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the user equipment, restriction information from the base station, the restriction information indicating that a network slice supported by the base station is to be provided with the restrictive condition; and transmitting, at the user equipment, an inquiry configured to acquire the network slice restriction information to the base station or the core network apparatus, in response to receiving the restriction information, wherein the receiving the network slice restriction information comprises receiving the network slice restriction information as a response to the inquiry.
7. The communication control method according to claim 6, wherein the transmitting the response comprises transmitting the response by using a message in a random access procedure.
6. The communication control method according to claim 5, wherein the transmitting the inquiry comprises transmitting, at the user equipment in an RRC idle state or an RRC inactive state, the inquiry by using a message in a random access procedure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the core network apparatus comprises transmitting, to the user equipment, an NGAP message comprising the network slice restriction information”. However, it is unclear how transmission to the core network apparatus comprise transmission to the UE, where NGAP messages are generally known in the art as communicated between base station and core network and the RRC messages are communicated from base station to user equipment. Upon review of the specification, the core network apparatus is described in specification as AMF/UPF (fig 1, 4, 21, para 25). Further, para 37 describes that “an NGAP (Application Protocol) message is transmitted and received between the gNB 200 and the AMF 300 on the NG-C interface”. Further, fig 11 and 12 indicate that NG setup request message or gNB configuration update messages are communicated from base station to AMF (core network apparatus). The examiner suggests to amend limitation as “wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the core network apparatus comprises transmitting, to the core network apparatus, an NGAP message comprising the network slice restriction information”.
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) 1, 4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 20220217593).
Regarding claim 1, 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches a base station (base station, fig 1A, 2; source base station, fig 3, 10) comprising:
a circuitry (processor 201, fig 2) configured to determine 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
a transmitter (transceiver 203, fig 2) configured to transmit, 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)).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches a mobile communication system (communication system, fig 1A, 3-11) comprising a base station (a base station 102 and a base station 103, fig 1A; source base station, fig 3, 10), wherein
the base station (source base station, fig 3, 10) is configured to determine 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
the base station (source base station, fig 3, 10) is configured to transmit, 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)).
Regarding claim 4, Yang further teaches
wherein the transmitting the restriction information (step 101, fig 3) comprises transmitting network slice restriction information as the restriction information to the certain base station (fig 3, 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 ), the network slice restriction information comprising a network slice identifier configured to identify the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition (para 165: the handover request message further includes identifier information of the UE, identifiers of k PDU sessions of the UE, and S-NSSAI of the n network slices corresponding to the k PDU sessions; para 132-133: one single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) identifies one network slice, S-NSSAI includes at least one of the following: slice type and service type (slice/service type, SST) information, the S-NSSAI may further include slice differentiator (SD) information), and
the communication control method (fig 3) further comprising
performing, at the certain base station, handover control for the user equipment, based on the network slice restriction information (step 102, fig 3; para 166-171: after receiving the handover request message, the target base station may determine, based on the local available resource and/or the local policy, to accept the maximum data rates provided by the n network slices for the UE, and prepare the resources required for the handover of the UE).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20220217593) in view of Lou et al. (US 20210160763)
Regarding claim 2, Yang teaches the limitation of parent claim. Yang teaches in fig 10, that source base station communicates with AMF, but does not teach communicating slice restriction information. Lou is directed to the method and apparatus for network slice configuration. Lou, in fig 3-7 describes slice configuration between network devices, and optionally (e.g. para 11) configures them as specific network devices, but the description is not limited to it. The examiner interprets the first network device as the base station and second network device as the core network apparatus in the claim.
Lou further teaches wherein the transmitting the restriction information (fig 3; para 191: step 302- the first network device sends the network slice configuration information to a second network device) comprises transmitting network slice restriction information as the restriction information to the core network apparatus (para 194-198: the network slice configuration information includes any one or more of the following information: network slice user information; network slice service management information; network slice attribute information; and network slice resource control information), the network slice restriction information comprising a network slice identifier configured to identify the network slice (para 199: the network slice user information includes any one or more of the following parameters: network slice identification information, mobile operator information, and user information) and condition information indicating the restrictive condition (para 203, 205: the network slice service management information includes any one or more of the following parameters, a QoS parameter of each network slice, including but not limited to information about a throughput, a delay, and a packet loss rate of each network slice), and
the communication control method (fig 3-7) further comprising
judging, at the core network apparatus, whether to avoid using the network slice, based on the network slice restriction information (para 240-241: in step 303, after receiving the network slice configuration information, the second network device may determine whether to accept the network slice configuration information, and return a response message to the first network device, when the response message returned by the second network device is the message indicating that the second network device refuses to accept the network slice configuration information, a refusal reason is further included, for example, QoS required by a network slice cannot be met, or configuration required by a network slice is not compatible with the capability information of the second network device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine network slice restriction configuration as taught by Yang with network slice configuration method as taught by Lou for the benefit of network efficiency improvement as taught by Lou in para 180.
Regarding claim 3, Yang further teaches
wherein the transmitting the network slice restriction information to the core network apparatus comprises transmitting an NGAP message comprising the network slice restriction information (fig 1B shows the NG-C and NG-U interface between the 5G core network and gNB, where the messages on NG interface are NGAP messages), and
wherein the NGAP message is an NG SETUP REQUEST message (fig 9, the base station send the second message to the AMF; para 272: the second message is used to indicate that the base station accepts the maximum data rates provided by the n network slices for the UE, the second message may be a PDU session resource setup response message, the second message may be an initial context setup response message) or a gNB CONFIGURATION UPDATE message (para 197: If the maximum data rate provided by the network slice for the UE may be updated based on the recommended value, the source base station sends an updated maximum data rate provided by the network slice for the UE to the target base station).
It is noted above with respect to 35 USC 112(b), that the limitation of transmitting to the core network apparatus comprising transmitting to the UE, and transmitting NGAP message to UE is unclear. However, for the purpose of compact prosecution, Yang does not teach the message transmission to the UE.
Lou further teaches transmitting, to the user equipment comprising the network slice restriction information (fig 6; para 297: step 606, the second network device sends a network slice configuration notification message to the terminal, the network slice configuration notification message includes the network slice configuration information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine network slice restriction configuration as taught by Yang with network slice configuration method as taught by Lou for the benefit of network efficiency improvement as taught by Lou in para 180.
Regarding claim 5, Yang fails to teach, but Lou further teaches
wherein the transmitting the restriction information (step 606, fig 6; step 706, fig 7) comprises transmitting network slice restriction information as the restriction information to the user equipment (fig 6; para 297: step 606, the second network device sends a network slice configuration notification message to the terminal, the network slice configuration notification message includes the network slice configuration information), the network slice restriction information comprising a network slice identifier configured to identify the network slice (para 199: the network slice user information includes any one or more of the following parameters: network slice identification information, mobile operator information, and user information) and condition information indicating the restrictive condition (para 203, 205: the network slice service management information includes any one or more of the following parameters, a QoS parameter of each network slice, including but not limited to information about a throughput, a delay, and a packet loss rate of each network slice). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine network slice restriction configuration as taught by Yang with network slice configuration method as taught by Lou for the benefit of network efficiency improvement as taught by Lou in para 180.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20220217593) in view of Sivavakeesar et al. (US 20190357131)
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches the limitation of the parent claim. Yang fails to teach broadcasting of network slice information and UE inquiring regarding slice restrictions. Sivavakeesar is directed to procedures performed between user equipment, a base station, and/or the core network in the context of network slicing (abstract).
Sivavakeesar further teaches wherein the transmitting the restriction information comprises broadcasting information, as the restriction information, indicating that the network slice is provided with the restrictive condition (para 77: to allow a particular UE 3 to know, as early as possible, whether that UE's allowed Tenant ID(s) and/or slice type(s) are supported within a particular cell, information identifying the supported Tenant ID(s), slice type (per Tenant ID) and TUPF 7-2 are broadcast in system information (for example in a system information block, ‘SIB’, such as SIB2 in LTE) by the corresponding gNB 5; here, the slice type is considered as restrictive condition), and
the communication control method (fig 9-20) further comprising:
receiving, at the base station, an inquiry about the restrictive condition from the user equipment (para 150-151: fig 12, at S1200 a message (a RRC connection reestablishment request message in the example) is sent from a UE 3 to a base station 5 to re-establish a connection, the RRC connection reestablishment request (FIG. 12(a)) or RRC connection reestablishment complete message (FIG. 12(b)) includes a slice identifier (which may be sent with or form part of network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI)) and an associated Tenant ID (which may form part of an MDD vector)); and
transmitting, at the base station, network slice restriction information as a response to the inquiry to the user equipment (para 150: the base station 5 responds with an appropriate message (e.g. an RRC connection reestablishment message) at S1202), the network slice restriction information comprising a network slice identifier configured to identify the network slice and condition information indicating the restrictive condition (as shown in fig 12(a), the response message is related to request with the a slice identifier (which may be sent with or form part of network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI)) and an associated Tenant ID (which may form part of an MDD vector)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine network slice restriction configuration as taught by Yang with network slice configuration method between UE and gNB as taught by Sivavakeesar for the benefit of supporting efficient paging and slice selection as taught by Sivavakeesar in abstract.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 20220217593) in view of Sivavakeesar et al. (US 20190357131) in further view of Han et al. (US 20200120547)
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Sivavakeesar teaches the limitation of the parent claim. Sivavakeesar teaches the gNB broadcasting slice information, and UE establishing connection with the gNB, but does not teach gNB responding with random access message. Han is directed to cell reselection procedures.
Han further teaches wherein the transmitting the response comprises transmitting the response by using a message in a random access procedure (para 108: after receiving the first request sent by the terminal device, the radio access network device generates the cell reselection information that includes the identifier of the carrier frequency and the network slice set identifier supported by each carrier frequency, and sends the cell reselection information to the terminal device by using a random access response message (for example, a msg2 or a msg4)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine network slice restriction configuration as taught by Yang and Sivavakeesar with random access response including network slice information configuration as taught by Han for the benefit of improving cell reselection efficiency as taught by Han in para 84.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RINA C PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-2679. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/RINA C PANCHOLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 1/7/2026