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 § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0135667 to Lee.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lee teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by an access and mobility management function (AMF), subscribed network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) that indicates location information associated with a slice and time information associated with the slice (see step 222 in Fig. 2 and section [0080], which teaches that the NF 200 provides an allowed slice S-NSSAI to an AMF, which includes the time and location information which relate to the time/location that the slice is available to the UE);
determining, by the AMF, an allowed NSSAI based on the location information and the time information (see sections [0081] to [0084], which teach that the AMF compares the UE requested slice to the slices received from the NF, where the “allowed” slices are allowed/permitted based on time and UE location, as recited); and
transmitting, by the AMF to a user equipment (UE), an indication of the allowed NSSAI (see steps 224 and 226 in Fig. 2 as described in sections [0081] to [0089], which teach the AMF sending to the UE (via the RAN node 110, base station) an acceptance of the requested slice.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 which recite “wherein the subscribed NSSAI is received in subscription data, and the subscription data is associated with a static policy used for determining the allowed NSSAI”, see the “subscription info request” in steps 216 and 218 (as described in sections [0074] and [0075]), which is used to determine the allowed NSSAI, as recited.
Regarding claims 3 and 14 which recite “wherein the subscribed NSSAI is received in access and mobility (AM) policy data, and the AM policy data is associated with a dynamic policy used for determining the allowed NSSAI”, sections [0077] to [0080] and [0091], which teach that the “dynamic policy” is the “time and location” of the NSSAI availability, as recited.
Regarding claims 5 and 15 which recite “further comprising: receiving, by the AMF, an indication of one or more of: subscribed slices that are not restricted by a policy, restricted slices and associated locations and times, allowed slices and associated locations and times, and location triggers for updating the allowed NSSAI, wherein the allowed NSSAI is determined based on the indication”, as described above, the steps described in Fig. 2 of Lee teach that the AMF receives “slices that are not restricted” (by time, location, policy and are always available) and also receives “allowed slices with their associated times and locations” as recited.
Regarding claim 6 and one alternative from 16 which recite “wherein the location information indicates a cell or a tracking area in which the slice is permitted to be used or is restricted from being used”, see for example, section [0085] of Lee, which teaches that routing areas (RA) include tracking areas (TA) where the NSSAI is available, as recited.
Regarding claim 7 and one alternative from 16 which recites “wherein the time information indicates a period of time or a time of day in which the slice is permitted to be used or is restricted from being used”, as described above, see sections [0077] to [0080] and [0091], which teach that the “time of day” of the NSSAI availability, as recited.
Regarding claim 8 which recites “wherein the indication of the allowed NSSAI is transmitted in response to a registration request or a configuration update”, see steps 210 and 214 in Fig. 2 (as described in sections [0072] to [0073] of Lee), which teach a “registration request” which prompts the NSSAI availability, as recited.
Regarding claim 10 which recites “further comprising: transmitting, by the AMF and to a user equipment (UE), a configuration update command indicating that a network slice restriction policy has occurred”, see for example, section [0135] of Lee which teaches updating the UE configuration of slice polices, as recited.
Regarding claim 11 which recites “wherein the allowed NSSAI is determined in response to an expiry of a policy timer”, see section [0110] of Lee, which teaches that the slice availability is determined with a “timer value”, as recited.
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.
Claims 4 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lee reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2020/0367141 to Cakulev.
Regarding claim 4, which recites “wherein the subscribed NSSAI is received from an access and mobility policy control function (AM-PCF)”, as Lee teaches receiving the NSSAI from a network device (NF 200), and although Lee teaches the NF 200 (and see for example, section [0091], which teaches that the NF includes and/or is a PCF), as the PCF Is not an AM-PCF, Cakulev is added.
In an analogous art, Cakulev teaches a system where an AMF receives slice information from an AM-PCF. See Fig. 2 (which shows the PCF 254) and see for example, section [0056], which teaches that the PCF is an AM-PCF, as recited.
Therefore, as both Lee and Cakulev teach the AMF selecting appropriate slices and receiving slice information from another network device (where Cakulev explicitly mentions the AM-PCF), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the AMF/PCF of Lee to receive the NSSAI information from an AM-PCF, for the reasons as in Cakulev, which are that PCFs selected by AMFs are referred to as AM-PCFs.
Regarding independent claim 17, this claim teaches the same three steps as claim 1, which the difference being that an AM-PCF sends the NSSAI information to the AMF. Therefore, see the rejection of claim 1 and the rejection of claim 4 above (which adds the AM-PCF). Therefore, the combination of Lee modified by Cakulev, teaches claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, which recites “wherein the subscribed NSSAI is received in subscription data, and the subscription data is associated with a static policy used for determining the allowed NSSAI”, see the “subscription info request” in steps 216 and 218 (as described in sections [0074] and [0075] of Lee), OR
“wherein the subscribed NSSAI is received in access and mobility (AM) policy data, and the AM policy data is associated with a dynamic policy used for determining the allowed NSSAI”, see sections [0077] to [0080] and [0091] of Lee, which teach that the “dynamic policy” is the “time and location” of the NSSAI availability, as recited.
Regarding claim 19 which recites “receive an indication of one or more of: subscribed slices that are not restricted by a policy, restricted slices and associated locations and times, allowed slices and associated locations and times, and location triggers for updating the allowed NSSAI, wherein the allowed NSSAI is determined based on the indication”, as described above, the steps described in Fig. 2 of Lee teach that the AMF receives “slices that are not restricted” (by time, location, policy and are always available) and also receives “allowed slices with their associated times and locations” as recited.
Regarding claim 20 which recites “wherein the location information indicates a cell or a tracking area in which the slice is permitted to be used or is restricted from being used”, see for example, section [0085] of Lee, which teaches that routing areas (RA) include tracking areas (TA) where the NSSAI is available); OR
“the time information indicates a period of time or a time of day in which the slice is permitted to be used or is restricted from being used”, as described above, see sections [0077] to [0080] and [0091] of Lee, which teach that the “time of day” of the NSSAI availability, as recited.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Lee reference as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. 2019/0357130 to Garcia Azorero.
Regarding claim 9 which recites “further comprising: detecting, by the AMF, a mobility event associated with a location update; transmitting, by the AMF, an access and mobility (AM) policy control update message that indicates a mobility trigger associated with the mobility event and the subscribed NSSAI; and receiving, by the AMF and based on a check of a policy in response to the mobility event, an indication of one or more of: subscribed slices that are not restricted by the policy, restricted slices and associated locations and times, allowed slices and associated locations and times, and location triggers for updating the allowed NSSAI, wherein the allowed NSSAI is determined based on the indication”, as Lee does not explicitly teach triggering based on a mobility event, Garcia Azorero is added.
In an analogous art, Garcia Azorero teaches a wireless system that transmits slice selections and information based on a number of events. As described in sections [0113] to [0120], Garcia Azorero teaches that UE location updates ([0114]) are one of a number of mobility events which trigger a network slice selection and policy update to determine if the UE requested slice may be allowed or denied ([0117] to [0120]).
Therefore, as both Lee and Garcia Azorero teach the AMF selecting appropriate and/or allowed slices based on UE location, and as Garcia Azorero teaches the AMF detecting the UE mobility event and triggering a slice/policy message sent to a PC NSS to determine an appropriate slice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Lee with the teachings of Garcia Azorero, for the reasons as in Garcia Azorero, which are that location changes prompt slice selection and/or slice changes.
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