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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the following contingent limitation(s): “checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE).” The limitation(s) is/are contingent because they recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. Limitation “checking a presence of the indication” only needs to be performed if User Equipment admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE). Therefore, the BRI of claim 1 requires limitation “receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS)” only.
Claims 2-3 are dependent claims that depend upon claim 1, limitations in claims 2-3 recite steps that are only required to be performed if their conditions precedent are met. Limitations in claims 2-3 only needs to be performed if User Equipment admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE). Therefore, the BRI of claims 2-3 require limitation “receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS)” only.
For prior art rejection regarding claim 1, the examiner provided rejection that includes all the limitations similar to the apparatus claim 4 for compact prosecution.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The examiner suggests remove the part stating the [Problem].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS), checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE).
Claim 1 recites a series of step or act. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The limitation of checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, other than reciting “User Equipment”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user validating a presence of an indication, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of User Equipment, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites "receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS)". The limitation "receiving" is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS)". The element amounts to obtaining data for a network node is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of User Equipment amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Re Claim 4 recites a series of step or instruction performed by processor in a network node. Thus, the claim is an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The limitation of checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, other than reciting network node comprising memory storing instructions and processor configured to process the instructions, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “checking” in the context of this claim encompasses the user validating a presence of an indication, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic processing component, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites "receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS)". The limitation "receiving" is mere data gathering recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to "receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS)". The element amounts to obtaining data for a network node is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. As for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of User Equipment amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim recites memory and processor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing memory stored instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processor and memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Re Claims 2 and 5, claim recites additional step of “executing updating the number of the UE registered for a network slice in a case where the indication is present, wherein the executing is executed for service continuity”.
The limitation of executing updating the number of the UE registered for a network slice, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation "updating" is mere increase/decrease a count number recited at a high level generality, and thus it is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Re Claims 3 and 6, claim recites wherein the threshold level related to the UE is a threshold level related to maximum number of the UE registered. This further limitation of the threshold level amount is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zong et al. (US 2020/0245127 A1) (Zong herein after) in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 2024/0137277 A1) (Venkataraman herein after).
Re Claim 1, Zong discloses a method for a network node or network slice management comprising:
receiving, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (AMF [0039]), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS) (UE currently has accessed a 4G network by using a source base station (a base station in the 4G network, for example, an E-UTRAN), and the UE is in a connected state. When the source base station finds that the UE needs to be handed over, the source base station selects a target base station. In this embodiment, the target base station selected by the source base station is a base station connected to a 5G core network (for example, an NG-RAN) [0058]; the MME determines that the first request message is for an inter-system handover. To implement the inter-system handover, the MME needs to determine, based on the information about the target access region carried in the first request message, an AMF that is to perform a handover operation. [0062]).
Zong discloses the claimed invention except checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE).
However, Venkataraman discloses the NSQ 245 may perform quota management using the exemplary quota management techniques described herein. Here, the NSQ 245 may operate in accordance with the NSQ decision making table 1100. To provide an example, when the 5GC only quota management scheme is in place, the NSQ 245 may perform operations such as, checking the quota availability for registered UE count and PDU session count from the IWK quota. If the IWK quota is available, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota and send a success message. If the IWK quota is unavailable, the NSQ 245 may check availability of the 5GC quota. If the 5GC quota is available, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota and send a success message. If the 5GC quota is unavailable, the NSQ 245 may send a message with a cause code for quota unavailable. This will cause the PDU session request to be rejected during the handover from EPC to 5GC ([0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and system of Zong, by making use of the technique taught by Venkataraman, in order to improve the handover connectivity.
Both references are within the same field of telecommunication, and in particular of network management, the modification does not change a fundamental operating principle of Zong, nor does Zong teach away from the modification (Zong merely discloses a preferred embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of success in that the modifications can be made using conventional and well known engineering and/or programming techniques, the method and system taught by Venkataraman is not altered and continues to perform the same function as separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly predictable result of checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE).
Re Claim 2, the combined teachings disclose the method according to claim 1, Venkataraman discloses comprising: executing updating the number of the UE registered for a network slice in a case where the indication is present, wherein the executing is executed for service continuity (when the unified quota management scheme is in place, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota for the UE ID and the S-NSSAI from the IWK quota. If the IWK quota is not available, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota from the 5GC quota [0124]).
Re Claim 3, the combined teachings disclose the method according to claim 1 or claim 2, Venkataraman discloses wherein the threshold level related to the UE is a threshold level related to maximum number of the UE registered with a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (NSQ 245 is configured to keep track of the count of registered UEs for a S-NSSAI and a count of active PDU sessions for the S-NSSA [0118]).
Re Claim 4, Zong discloses a network node for network slice management comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor (memory processor, [0021]) configured to process the instructions to:
receive, from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), an indication related to mobility from Evolved Packet Systems (EPS) to 5G Systems (5GS) (UE currently has accessed a 4G network by using a source base station (a base station in the 4G network, for example, an E-UTRAN), and the UE is in a connected state. When the source base station finds that the UE needs to be handed over, the source base station selects a target base station. In this embodiment, the target base station selected by the source base station is a base station connected to a 5G core network (for example, an NG-RAN) [0058]; the MME determines that the first request message is for an inter-system handover. To implement the inter-system handover, the MME needs to determine, based on the information about the target access region carried in the first request message, an AMF that is to perform a handover operation. [0062]).
Zong discloses the claimed invention except checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE).
However, Venkataraman discloses the NSQ 245 may perform quota management using the exemplary quota management techniques described herein. Here, the NSQ 245 may operate in accordance with the NSQ decision making table 1100. To provide an example, when the 5GC only quota management scheme is in place, the NSQ 245 may perform operations such as, checking the quota availability for registered UE count and PDU session count from the IWK quota. If the IWK quota is available, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota and send a success message. If the IWK quota is unavailable, the NSQ 245 may check availability of the 5GC quota. If the 5GC quota is available, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota and send a success message. If the 5GC quota is unavailable, the NSQ 245 may send a message with a cause code for quota unavailable. This will cause the PDU session request to be rejected during the handover from EPC to 5GC ([0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method and system of Zong, by making use of the technique taught by Venkataraman, in order to improve the handover connectivity.
Both references are within the same field of telecommunication, and in particular of network management, the modification does not change a fundamental operating principle of Zong, nor does Zong teach away from the modification (Zong merely discloses a preferred embodiment). The combination has a reasonable expectation of success in that the modifications can be made using conventional and well known engineering and/or programming techniques, the method and system taught by Venkataraman is not altered and continues to perform the same function as separately, and the resultant combination produces the highly predictable result of checking a presence of the indication in a case where User Equipment (UE) admission is above a threshold level related to a User Equipment (UE).
Re Claim 5, the combined teachings disclose the network node for network slice management according to claim 4, Venkataraman discloses wherein the processor configured to execute update of the number of the UE registered for a network slice in a case where the indication is present, wherein the executing is executed for service continuity (when the unified quota management scheme is in place, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota for the UE ID and the S-NSSAI from the IWK quota. If the IWK quota is not available, the NSQ 245 may decrement the quota from the 5GC quota [0124]).
Re Claim 6, the combined teachings disclose the network node for network slice management according to claim 4 or claim 5, Venkataraman discloses wherein the threshold level related to the UE is a threshold level related to maximum number of the UE registered with a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (NSQ 245 is configured to keep track of the count of registered UEs for a S-NSSAI and a count of active PDU sessions for the S-NSSA [0118]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Velev (US 2024/0147235 A1) – network slice admission control
Kiss et al. (US 2022/0361093 A1) – network slice admission control discovery and roaming enhancements
Jing et al. (US 2020/0260340 A1) – session establishment method and system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH T LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1862. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/KENNETH T LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631