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
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 1-3, 5-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2023/0135667 to Lee in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2020/0367141 to Cakulev and U.S. Patent Pub. 2021/0168705 to Fiorese.
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 the amendment to claim 1 (incorporating previous claim 4) reciting “and 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 the amendment to claim 1 reciting: wherein the location information indicates a service area restriction of the slice, and wherein the service area restriction is determined by the AM-PCF based at least in part on a policy for determining an allowed NSSAI”, although Cakulev teaches in section [0060] that the AM-PCF uses restrictions for tracking area indicators (TAIs), as the restrictions are for registrations (not slices per se, although registration generally include slice IDs), Fiorese is added.
In an analogous art, Fiorese teaches a system where a roaming UE is provided slices. See sections [0040]-[0044], [0063] and [0182] which teach the AMF receiving registrations, NSSAIs and tracking area indicators. See sections [0142]-[0153], which teach that the slices are restricted due to policies such as time, location, as recited.
Therefore, as Lee/Cakuley teach receiving TAIs and slice IDs and as Fiorese teaches that slices (NSSAIs) are restricted by location (tracking area indicators), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the AM-PCF of Lee and Cakulev with the restrictions of Fiorese, for the reasons as described in Fiorese, which are that certain network operators and devices are conventionally restricted for a number of reasons such as cost, loading on the network, and types of content.
Regarding claims 2 and 13 which recite “wherein the policy is a static policy for determining the allowed NSSAI and wherein the subscribed NSSAI is received in subscription data, and the subscription data is associated with the static policy”, 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, and see sections [0142]-[0153] of Fiorese for both static and dynamic policies.
Regarding claims 3 and 14 which recite “wherein the policy is a dynamic policy for determining the allowed NSSAI and 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, and see sections [0142]-[0153] of Fiorese for both static and dynamic policies.
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, and see also sections [0142]-[0153] of Fiorese for both static and dynamic slice restriction policies.
.
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, and see also Fiorese.
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 and see sections [0142]-[0153] of Fiorese.
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.
Regarding independent claim 17, this claim teaches the same three steps as in claim 1 and also includes the same amendment. Therefore, see the rejection of claim 1 and above which now adds the Fiorese reference. Therefore, the combination of Lee modified by Cakulev and Fiorese, teaches the features in 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.
Regarding claim 21, which recites “wherein the indication of the allowed NSSAI is transmitted in response to a registration request or a configuration update”, as described above, see sections [0068]-[0073] and [0089] of Lee, see sections [0043] and [0055]-[0057], [0063]-[0071] of Cakulev and sections [0026] and [0040] of Fiorese, which teach the registration requests and see the rejection of claim 1 for the responses of allowed NSSAIs received in a response to a registration request, as recited. Therefore, the combination of references would render obvious this feature.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are now moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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