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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 20220377655 A1; hereinafter “KELLER”) in view of Yang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0137621 A1; hereinafter “YANG”).
Regarding claim 1, KELLER teaches a network slice admission control method (KELLER, para. 0031-33), comprising:
receiving, by an access and mobility management network element, a registration request message from a terminal device, the registration request message carrying identification information of a network slice that the terminal device requests to access, the network slice being subject to admission control (KELLER discloses a UE sending a registration request to the network, and the AMF receiving this registration request with a requested S-NSSAI);
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, that a quantity of terminal devices accessing the network slice subject to admission control is greater than or equal to a first threshold (KELLER teaches the AMF retrieves the quotas for the S-NSSAIs and specifically "determines whether to accept, redirect or reject the request based on the quotas" and determines "if acceptance of the request would exceed the maximum number of UEs");
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, an identification information of a first network slice that is an alternative and that will allow the terminal to access (KELLER teaches the source discloses the AMF providing an alternate slice to allow the terminal to access when the threshold is met: "the AMF 40 may accept a registration request and provide an alternate S-NSSAI when the quota for the requested S-NSSAI has been reached"); and
sending, by the access and mobility management network element to the terminal device, a registration accept message carrying the identification information of the first network slice (KELLER teaches the AMF accepts the registration request and sends a registration response providing the alternate S-NSSAI).
KELLER is silent to teaching that wherein the alternative slice is a first network slice that is not subject to admission control.
In the same field of endeavor, YANG teaches a method wherein the alternative slice is a first network slice that is not subject to admission control (see YANG, fig. 5, AC level 515, no admission control, para. [0055], fig. 7, 755, para. [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER with the teaching of YANG in order to improve legacy wireless protocol and optimal uses of new wireless protocols (see YANG, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first network slice is a default subscribed network slice of the terminal device (KELLER teaches that the UE requested slice "may be based on 1) allowed NSSAI, 2) a preconfigured default NSSAI, or 3) the S-NSSAIs for one or more established PDU sessions". KELLER also teaches that the UDM provides the "subscribed S-NSSAIs" to the AMF. When a quota is reached, KELLER teaches the AMF may "provide an alternate S-NSSAI").
Regarding claim 3, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the access and mobility management network element, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice (KELLER discloses that the AMF decides to provide the terminal access to an alternate slice when the requested slice is full. Specifically, it teaches that "the AMF 40 may accept a registration request and provide an alternate S-NSSAI when the quota for the requested S-NSSAI has been reached and additional capacity is available on an alternate S-NSSAI").
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jeong and YANG teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the determining, by the access and mobility management network element, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice comprises:
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a first request message to a unified data management network element (see Jeong, fig. 4, S430, para. [0111], UDM);
receiving, by the access and mobility management network element, a first response message from the unified data management network element, the first response message carrying the identification information of the first network slice and first indication information, and the first indication information indicating to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold (see Jeong, para. [0111]); and
determining, by the access and mobility management network element based on the first indication information, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice is greater than or equal to the first threshold (see Jeong, fig. 4, S470, S480, para. [0115-116]).
Regarding claim 17, KELLER teaches a communication apparatus (KELLER, para. 0096-98), comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the memory, the at least one processor configured, upon execution of the instructions, to perform the following steps:
receiving, by an access and mobility management network element, a registration request message from a terminal device, the registration request message carrying identification information of a network slice that the terminal device requests to access, the network slice being subject to admission control (KELLER discloses a UE sending a registration request to the network, and the AMF receiving this registration request with a requested S-NSSAI);
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, that a quantity of terminal devices accessing the network slice subject to admission control is greater than or equal to a first threshold (KELLER teaches the AMF retrieves the quotas for the S-NSSAIs and specifically "determines whether to accept, redirect or reject the request based on the quotas" and determines "if acceptance of the request would exceed the maximum number of UEs");
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, an identification information of a first network slice that is an alternative and that will allow the terminal to access (KELLER teaches the source discloses the AMF providing an alternate slice to allow the terminal to access when the threshold is met: "the AMF 40 may accept a registration request and provide an alternate S-NSSAI when the quota for the requested S-NSSAI has been reached"); and
sending, by the access and mobility management network element to the terminal device, a registration accept message carrying the identification information of the first network slice (KELLER teaches the AMF accepts the registration request and sends a registration response providing the alternate S-NSSAI).
KELLER is silent to teaching that wherein the alternative slice is a first network slice that is not subject to admission control.
In the same field of endeavor, YANG teaches a device wherein the alternative slice is a first network slice that is not subject to admission control (see YANG, fig. 5, AC level 515, no admission control, para. [0055], fig. 7, 755, para. [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER with the teaching of YANG in order to improve legacy wireless protocol and optimal uses of new wireless protocols (see YANG, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 18, KELLER teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer instructions that configure at least one processor, upon execution of the instructions, to perform the following steps (KELLER, para. 0096-98):
receiving, by an access and mobility management network element, a registration request message from a terminal device, the registration request message carrying identification information of a network slice that the terminal device requests to access, the network slice being subject to admission control (KELLER discloses a UE sending a registration request to the network, and the AMF receiving this registration request with a requested S-NSSAI);
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, that a quantity of terminal devices accessing the network slice subject to admission control is greater than or equal to a first threshold (KELLER teaches the AMF retrieves the quotas for the S-NSSAIs and specifically "determines whether to accept, redirect or reject the request based on the quotas" and determines "if acceptance of the request would exceed the maximum number of UEs");
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, an identification information of a first network slice that is an alternative and that will allow the terminal to access (KELLER teaches the source discloses the AMF providing an alternate slice to allow the terminal to access when the threshold is met: "the AMF 40 may accept a registration request and provide an alternate S-NSSAI when the quota for the requested S-NSSAI has been reached"); and
sending, by the access and mobility management network element to the terminal device, a registration accept message carrying the identification information of the first network slice (KELLER teaches the AMF accepts the registration request and sends a registration response providing the alternate S-NSSAI).
KELLER is silent to teaching that wherein the alternative slice is a first network slice that is not subject to admission control.
In the same field of endeavor, YANG teaches a device wherein the alternative slice is a first network slice that is not subject to admission control (see YANG, fig. 5, AC level 515, no admission control, para. [0055], fig. 7, 755, para. [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER with the teaching of YANG in order to improve legacy wireless protocol and optimal uses of new wireless protocols (see YANG, para. [0001]).
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELLER and YANG, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0136715 A1; hereinafter “Jeong”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 3.
The combination of KELLER and YANG is silent to teaching that wherein the determining, by the access and mobility management network element, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice comprises:
configuring, by the access and mobility management network element, first information, the first information indicating to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold; and
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, based on the first information, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice is greater than or equal to the first threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeong teaches a method wherein the determining, by the access and mobility management network element, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice comprises:
configuring, by the access and mobility management network element, first information, the first information indicating to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold (see Jeong, fig. 4, S470, para. [0115]); and
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, based on the first information, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice is greater than or equal to the first threshold (see Jeong, fig. 4, S480, para. [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER and YANG with the teaching of Jeong in order to reduce propagation loss and increase transmission range (Jeong, para. 0004).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 3.
The combination of KELLER and YANG is silent to teaching that wherein the determining, by the access and mobility management network element, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice comprises:
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, based on subscription information of the terminal device, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice, wherein the subscription information of the terminal device comprises first indication information, and the first indication information indicates to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Jeong teaches a method wherein the determining, by the access and mobility management network element, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice comprises:
determining, by the access and mobility management network element, based on subscription information of the terminal device, to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice, wherein the subscription information of the terminal device comprises first indication information, and the first indication information indicates to allow the terminal device to access the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold (see Jeong, para. [0092], UDM, PCF).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER and YANG with the teaching of Jeong in order to reduce propagation loss and increase transmission range (Jeong, para. 0004).
Claim(s) 7-10, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELLER and YANG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajput et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0247779 A1; hereinafter “Rajput”)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination of KELLER and YANG is silent to teaching that wherein a quantity of terminal devices that access the first network slice is less than a second threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput teaches a method wherein a quantity of terminal devices that access the first network slice is less than a second threshold (see Rajput, fig. 5, 500, para. [0050-51], subscription threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER and YANG with the teaching of Rajput in order to balance network capacity and demands (see Rajput, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of KELLER, YANG and Rajput teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a second request message to a first network element, the second request message carrying the identification information of the first network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access, and carrying identification information of the default subscribed network slice; and
receiving, by the access and mobility management network element, a second response message from the first network element, the second response message carrying second indication information and third indication information, the second indication information indicating that the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold, and the third indication information indicating that a quantity of terminal devices that access the default subscribed network slice is less than the second threshold (see Rajput, fig. 5, 500, para. [0050-51], subscription threshold) (KELLER teaches the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) sending a request to the Network Slice Control Function (NSCF) (the first network element) that includes "a list of allowed S-NSSAIs for the user", which may include the requested S-NSSAI along with alternate (e.g., default) S-NSSAIs. KELLER also teaches that the NSCF responds by providing an indication "indicating which of the allowed S-NSSAIs are available, i.e., have sufficient quota to support the request").
Regarding claim 9, the combination of KELLER, YANG and Rajput teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the second request message further comprises fourth indication information, the fourth indication information indicating to trigger admission control on the default subscribed network slice when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold (KELLER teaches the AMF simply requests quotas or availability status for a list of slices, and the NSCF replies with their statuses).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of KELLER, YANG and Rajput teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the second request message further comprises fifth indication information, the fifth indication information indicating the first network element to determine the first network slice from a plurality of default subscribed network slices, or the fifth indication information indicating the first network element to perform terminal device counting on only the first network slice in the plurality of default subscribed network slices (KELLER teaches the AMF simply requests quotas or availability status for a list of slices, and the NSCF replies with their statuses).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a third request message to a first network element when the quantity of terminal devices that access the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is greater than or equal to the first threshold, the third request message carrying identification information of the default subscribed network slice; and
receiving, by the access and mobility management network element, a third response message from the first network element, the third response message carrying third indication information (KELLER teaches the Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) sending a request to the Network Slice Control Function (NSCF) (the first network element) that includes "a list of allowed S-NSSAIs for the user", which may include the requested S-NSSAI along with alternate (e.g., default) S-NSSAIs. KELLER also teaches that the NSCF responds by providing an indication "indicating which of the allowed S-NSSAIs are available, i.e., have sufficient quota to support the request").
The combination of KELLER and YANG is silent to teaching that wherein the third indication information indicating that a quantity of terminal devices that access the default subscribed network slice is less than a second threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput teaches a method wherein the third indication information indicating that a quantity of terminal devices that access the default subscribed network slice is less than a second threshold (see Rajput, fig. 5, 500, para. [0050-51], subscription threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER and YANG with the teaching of Rajput in order to balance network capacity and demands (see Rajput, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of KELLER and YANG teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination of KELLER and YANG is silent to teaching that wherein the method further comprises:
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a subscription request message to the first network element, the subscription request message carrying the identification information of the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access, and carrying identification information of the terminal device;
receiving, by the access and mobility management network element, a first notification message from the first network element, the first notification message carrying seventh indication information, the seventh indication information indicating that a quantity of terminal devices that access a second network slice in the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is less than the first threshold; and
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a second notification message to the terminal device, the second notification message carrying identification information of the second network slice.
In the same field of endeavor, Rajput teaches a method comprising
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a subscription request message to the first network element, the subscription request message carrying the identification information of the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access, and carrying identification information of the terminal device (see Rajput, fig. 5, step 1, para. [0050]);
receiving, by the access and mobility management network element, a first notification message from the first network element, the first notification message carrying seventh indication information, the seventh indication information indicating that a quantity of terminal devices that access a second network slice in the network slice subject to admission control in the network slice that the terminal device requests to access is less than the first threshold (see Rajput, fig. 5, step 3, 500, para. [0050]); and
sending, by the access and mobility management network element, a second notification message to the terminal device, the second notification message carrying identification information of the second network slice (see Rajput, fig. 5, 4a, para. [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of KELLER and YANG with the teaching of Rajput in order to balance network capacity and demands (see Rajput, para. [0008]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELLER, YANG and Rajput as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0195511 A1; hereinafter “Yang 511”)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of KELLER, YANG and Rajput teaches the method according to claim 10.
The combination of KELLER, YANG and Rajput is silent to teaching that wherein the first network slice is in the plurality of default subscribed network slices that is accessed by a smallest quantity of terminal devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Yang 511 teaches a method wherein the first network slice is in the plurality of default subscribed network slices that is accessed by a smallest quantity of terminal devices (see Yang 511, para. [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Jeong, YANG and Rajput with the teaching of Yang 511in order to provide network slice selection functions (see Yang 511, para. [0003])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 16-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prabhakar (US 20210297977), Ryu (US 20190075511), and Li (US 20220264428) teaches network admission control systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights