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 .
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on 06/23/2026.
In the instant Amendment, claims 2 and 19 have been cancelled, claims 1, 6, 14-16 have been amended; and claims 1, and 14-16 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3-18, and 20 have been examined and are pending. This action is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 regarding claim 1 and 14-16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 3GPP, Venkataraman, and Ianev fail to individually or combined disclose a single message containing information indicating both an availability check and an update of the number of registered UEs.
3GPP teaches that, following successful NSSAA, the AMF transmits a request to another network function requesting verification of the local quota and adjustment of a policy counter associated with the S-NSSAI. Thus, 3GPP teaches a single request carrying information associated with multiple quota control operations, including an availability check. Ianev further teaches including in a request information identifying the quota type as the number of UEs per network slice and an update flag indicating that the quota is to be updated. It would have been obvious to include Ianev’s UE count update information in the single availability check request of 3GPP so that the receiving network function could determine slice availability and maintain an accurate registered UE count using the same signaling request. Moreover, the claim does not require that the availability check and update actually be completed; it requires only that the single message comprise information indicating that those operations are to be performed. Accordingly, the combined teachings render obvious the recited single message comprising information indicating to perform an availability check and update a number of registered UEs for the network slice.
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.
Claims 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 recite in response to successful NSSAA, “an availability check and a NSAC update are performed” and subsequently recites that “a single message comprises information indicating to perform availability check and update a number of registered UEs for the network slice”. It is unclear whether the claim requires actual performance of the availability check and update, merely the transmission or receipt of information requesting those operations, or both. Further, the claim does not identify the entity transmitting or receiving the single message or clearly establish that the recited NSAC update is the number of registered UEs. Accordantly the metes and bounds of the claimed user equipment and processor are unclear.
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, 6-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210306972 A1; Hereinafter “Watfa”) in view of 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of network slicing; Hereinafter “3GPP”), and Ianev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0264427 A1; Hereinafter “Ianev”).
As per claims 1 and 15-16, Watfa teaches an apparatus for performing a first network function (NF) (AMF), the apparatus further comprising (Watfa: para [110-111], “a network may include a user equipment (UE), and an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity.”):
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to (Watfa: para[299-300], “the UE and/or AMF may be provided in the form of the network entity illustrated in FIG. 6.. The entity 600 comprises a processor (or controller) 601, a transmitter 603 and a receiver 605.”):
receive a registration request message comprising a registration request for a network slice, wherein the network slice is subject to network slice specific secondary authentication and authorization (NSSAA) and network slice admission control (Watfa: para [171-172], “the roaming UE may include the requested mapped NSSAI IE in the registration request message and the S-NSSAI(s) included in this IE may be subject to NSSAA. Therefore, it is provided that the AMF may also consider and take into account the mapped S-NSSAI content in the requested mapped NSSAI IE for NSSAA optionally in addition to the S-NSSAI entries of the requested NSSAI IE if the latter is also included in the registration request message.”);
transmit a registration accept message to a user equipment (UE), wherein the registration accept message comprises pending network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) including a network slice identity corresponding to the network slice (Watfa: para[173-185], “If the UE supports NSSAA and the UE included the requested mapped NSSAI IE in the registration request message for which the entries in the requested mapped NSSAI are subject to NSSAA, the AMF may include the corresponding S-NSSAIs in the pending NSSAI IE and send the IE to the UE in the registration accept message….When NSSAA is to be performed, the UE may receive the registration accept message with a pending NSSAI IE and optionally an allowed NSSAI IE”).
Watfa does not clearly teach transmit information initiating an NSSAA procedure to the user equipment UE; and in response to the NSSAA procedure being successful, transmit a single message to a second NF wherein the single message comprises information indicating to perform availability check and update a number of registered UEs for the network slice.
However, in the related art, 3GPP discloses transmit information initiating an NSSAA procedure to the user equipment UE (3GPP: case 1, page 28 “AMF triggers NSSAA procedure- IF the related S-NSSAI has not been added into the Allowed NSSAI, for pending Network Slice Specific Authentication and Authorisation (NS SAA) for the S-NSSAI, AMF triggers NS SAA procedure according to the clause 4.2.9.2(step 1-step 17) in TS 23.502 [6]..”); and
in response to the NSSAA procedure being successful , transmit a single message to a second NF wherein the single message comprises information indicating to perform availability check and a counter update (3GPP teaches that in response to successful NSSAA, the AMF transmits a single request to another network function that indicates both a quota availability check and a counter update. Specifically, 3GPP states that, “if the pending NSSAA procedure is successful for the S-NSSAI,” the AMF “requests the AM-PCF to verify the local quota and increase the policy counter of the S-NSSAI by one.” See 3GPP, page 28. Thus, 3GPP does not describe one request for verification and a separate request for the counter increase; rather, the same AMF to AM-PCF request communicates both requested operations such as verification of the local quota and an increase of the associated counter. Accordingly, this AMF-to-AM-PCF request corresponds to the claimed single message comprising information indicating to perform an availability check and information indicating to perform an update.).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watfa’s NSSAA based registration procedure, as taught by 3GPP, such that, following successful NSSAA, the AMF transmits a single request message to the second network function containing information that requests both verification of the available network slice quota and an increase of the corresponding slice counter. 3GPP expressly treats the quota verification and counter increase as related operations requested by the AMF in the same signaling transaction. It would reduce redundant signaling, maintains consistency between the availability determination and the counter update, and enables the receiving network function to complete network slice admission control for the same UE and S-NSSAI in a single transaction.
3GPP does not expressly identify its policy counter as the claimed number of registered UEs for the network slice.
However, Ianev teaches update a number of registered UEs for the network slice (Ianev teaches implementing network slice quota signaling using a count of registered UEs. Ianev discloses an Nnsq/nssf_NetworkSliceQuota_Update Request message containing a UE identifier, an S-NSSAI, a type-of-NSQ-service parameter having the value “number of UE(s) per network slice” quota, and an update flag indicating that the quota is to be updated when a new UE registers for the S-NSSAI. See Ianev, paragraphs [133-145]. Ianev further explains that the receiving NSQ/NSSF may update the list of registered UEs by adding the UE identifier and may increase the number of UEs registered with the S-NSSAI for comparison with the maximum permitted number of UEs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Watfa in view of 3GPP’s single AMF-to-AM-PCF request, which already requests both verification of the local quota and an increase of the corresponding counter, using Ianev’s known UE count quota parameters, including the UE identifier, S-NSSAI, “number of UE(s) per network slice” quota type, and update flag. In the resulting combination, the AMF would transmit one request message containing information that causes the receiving NF both to check availability for the identified S-NSSAI and to update the number of registered UEs for that S-NSSAI, because those parameters would provide the receiving NF with the information needed to carry out the two operations expressly requested by 3GPP, while avoiding redundant signaling and maintaining the availability determination and UE count update in the same network slice admission transaction (Ianev, para [38]).
Furthermore, Watfa also teaches the UE and hardware components of claims 15-16 such a user equipment and a processor for wireless communication (Watfa: para[110], “A user equipment (UE), the UE comprising: a transceiver; and at least one processor configured to control the transceiver to”).
As per claim 3, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1. 3GPP teaches in response to the NSSAA procedure being unsuccessful, store a result of the NSSAA procedure (3GPP: page 28, step 1-6, “if the authorization fails and the S-NSSAI needs to be removed from the Allowed NSSAI according to the clause 4.2.9.2(step 1-step 17) in TS 23.502 [6], before EAP failure NAS message sent back to the UE, same as the step 2 in clause 6.1.3.3, the AMF requests the serving PCF to decrease the policy counter of the S-NSSAI by one.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 6, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1. 3GPP teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive a response to the single message from the second NF (3GPP: page 22-23, step 4-5, “Upon PCF decision from step 4, PCF sends the response of the registration request for S-NSSAI(s) to the serving AMF.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 7, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 6. 3GPP teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to, as a result of the response indicating a failed availability check, transmit a configuration update to the UE, wherein the configuration update comprises a rejected NSSAI including the network slice (3GPP: page 22-23, step 5-6, “The PCF sends an indication, e.g. rejection message, to the serving AMF. The Registration Reject message is sent to the UE by a serving AMF along with the back-off timer and a suitable cause value.. It is possible at any time the UE initiates the registration procedure to update the allowed S-NSSAI(s), e.g. adding/removing one S-NSSAI to the Allowed NSSAI.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 8, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 7. 3GPP teaches wherein the rejected NSSAI including the network slice further comprises a reject cause value corresponding to the failed availability check (3GPP: page 22-23, step 5-6, “The PCF sends an indication, e.g. rejection message, to the serving AMF. The Registration Reject message is sent to the UE by a serving AMF along with the back-off timer and a suitable cause value.. It is possible at any time the UE initiates the registration procedure to update the allowed S-NSSAI(s), e.g. adding/removing one S-NSSAI to the Allowed NSSAI.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 9, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 6. Watfa teaches transmit a configuration update to the UE, wherein the configuration update comprises an allowed NSSAI including the network slice (Watfa: para[221],[229] “Note that some or all of the checks above (i.e., the checks in the UE to determine whether or not a PDU session may be locally released based on the received NSSAI information) may also be performed when the UE receives the same information or a subset of the information (i.e., allowed NSSAI only, or pending NSSAI only, or both allowed NSSAI and pending NSSAI) in the configuration update command message.”).
As per claim 10, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 9. 3GPP teaches remove the network slice from the pending NSSAI (3GPP: page 22-23, step 5-6, “It is possible at any time the UE initiates the registration procedure to update the allowed S-NSSAI(s), e.g. adding/removing one S-NSSAI to the Allowed NSSAI. In that case the AMF compares the updated Allowed NSSAI with the stored Allowed NSSAI and notifies the status to the PCF. The PCF decides the update the policy counter(s) of associated S-NSSAI(s).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 11, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 9. 3GPP teaches remove the network slice from the allowed NSSAI (3GPP: page 22-23, step 5-6, “It is possible at any time the UE initiates the registration procedure to update the allowed S-NSSAI(s), e.g. adding/removing one S-NSSAI to the Allowed NSSAI. In that case the AMF compares the updated Allowed NSSAI with the stored Allowed NSSAI and notifies the status to the PCF.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 12, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 11. 3GPP teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit an update request message to the second NF indicating to remove the UE from a list of registered UEs (3GPP: page 22-23, step 8, “A UE triggers a de-registration request to the serving AMF. The AMF triggers the update of policy counter to the associated PCF during AM policy association termination procedure. Sb. Upon receiving a deregistration request from the AMF, the secondary PCF of the S-NSSAI increases the remaining local quota of the S-NSSAI by one..”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
As per claim 13, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1. Watfa teaches wherein the network slice is identified by a single NSSAI (Watfa: para [171-172], “the roaming UE may include the requested mapped NSSAI IE in the registration request message and the S-NSSAI(s) included in this IE may be subject to NSSAA. Therefore, it is provided that the AMF may also consider and take into account the mapped S-NSSAI content in the requested mapped NSSAI IE for NSSAA optionally in addition to the S-NSSAI entries of the requested NSSAI IE if the latter is also included in the registration request message.”).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watfa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210306972 A1; Hereinafter “Watfa”) in view of 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of network slicing; Hereinafter “3GPP”), Ianev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0264427 A1; Hereinafter “Ianev”), and Venkataraman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0368421 A1; Hereinafter “Venkataraman”).
As per claim 4, Watfa in view of 3GPP, and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1.
Watfa in view of 3GPP does not explicitly teach in response to the NSSAA procedure being unsuccessful, transmit a configuration update to the UE, wherein the configuration update comprises a rejected NSSAI including the network slice.
However, in the related art, Venkataraman teaches in response to the NSSAA procedure being unsuccessful, transmit a configuration update to the UE, wherein the configuration update comprises a rejected NSSAI including the network slice (Venkataraman: para[110-111], “if the AAA procedure is unsuccessful, the AMF may perform a configuration update procedure 630B, to inform the UE that it is not allowed to use the requested network slice. The configuration update procedure 630B may include sending to the UE an allowed NSSAI list excluding the S-NSSAI value, and/or, a rejected NSSAI list including the S-NSSAI value.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a corresponding update of the number of registered UEs for the requested slice as taught by Venkataraman. It will ensure that slice admission is based not only on successful NSSAA, but also on slice capacity thereby maintaining an accurate per slice UE registration count across network functions (Venkataraman, para[181]).
As per claim 5, Watfa in view of 3GPP, Ianev and Venkataraman teaches the dependent claim 4. Venkataraman teaches wherein the rejected NSSAI including the network slice further comprises a reject cause value corresponding to the NSSAA procedure being unsuccessful (Venkataraman: para[115], “the AMF may not attempt to proceed with NSAAA for this network slice, and send a response message 722 to the UE, indicating that the requested network slice (S-NSSAI value) is rejected. The response message may include a cause code that is set to a value indicating “quota not available” as the cause of rejection. Thus, the UE is not allowed to use the requested network slice. (The response message 722 may be responsive to a registration request sent by the UE, e.g., as variously described above.)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a corresponding update of the number of registered UEs for the requested slice as taught by Venkataraman. It will ensure that slice admission is based not only on successful NSSAA, but also on slice capacity thereby maintaining an accurate per slice UE registration count across network functions (Venkataraman, para[181]).
Claims 14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230087407 A1; Hereinafter “Wu”) in view of 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of network slicing; Hereinafter “3GPP”) and Ianev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0264427 A1; Hereinafter “Ianev”).
As per claim 14, Wu teaches an apparatus for performing a third network function (NF) (SMF 1014), the apparatus further comprising (Wu: fig. 7(1)(20, para[278-286], “The method 700 mainly describes the foregoing solution in which the SMF determines, based on the authorization information, whether the authentication result exists.”):
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to (Wu: para[604-613], “The processor 1210 is coupled to a memory 1220. The memory 1220 is configured to store a computer program or instructions and/or data. The processor 1210 is configured to execute the computer program or the instructions and/or the data stored in the memory 1220.. the processor 1210 is configured to implement processing-related operations performed by the SMF”):
receive a request from a user equipment (UE) to establish a protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) (Wu: para [278-286], “A terminal device initiates a PDU session establishment request to an AMF…the NAS message includes single network slice selection assistance information (Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information, S-NSSAI) and session management (session management, SM) (N1 SM) information, and the N1 SM information includes the session establishment request…The AMF sends the PDU session establishment request to an SMF. For example, the AMF may send an N.sub.smf interface PDU session establishment session management context request (N.sub.smf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request) message to the SMF, where the message includes the PDU session establishment request.”);
determine, at the third NF, whether to perform a secondary authentication for the PDU session (Wu: para [286-296], “The SMF determines whether to initiate a secondary authentication procedure..”);
in response to determining to perform the secondary authentication, perform the secondary authentication for the PDU session (Wu: para [322-327], “Perform the secondary authentication procedure. As shown in FIG. 7(1), after the SMF determines to initiate the secondary authentication procedure, the method 700 may include steps 706A1 to 706A7. 706A1: The SMF determines to initiate the secondary authentication procedure. It may be understood that the SMF triggers the secondary authentication procedure. 706A2: Perform secondary authentication and authorization between the terminal device and a DN-AAA. The DN-AAA performs authentication and/or authorization on the terminal device…. If successfully authenticating the terminal device, the DN-AAA may send an authentication success message to the SMF.”).
Wu does not clearly teach in response to the secondary authentication being successful, transmit a single message to a second NF, the single message comprises information indicating to perform availability check and update a number of registered UEs for the network slice.
However, in the related art, 3GPP discloses in response to the secondary authentication being successful, transmit a single message to a second NF, the single message comprises information indicating to perform availability check (3GPP: page 28, “If the pending NSSAA procedure is successful for the S-NSSAI, before EAP success NAS message sent back to the UE, same as the step 2-6 in clause 6.1.3.2, the AMF requests the AM-PCF to verify the local quota and increase the policy counter of the S-NSSAI by one”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Watfa’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check as taught in the 3GPP. it will ensure that only authorized devices and users can access specific network slices.
Watfa in view of 3GPP does not explicitly teach that the information also indicating to update a number of registered UEs for the network slice.
However, in the related art, Ianev teaches message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs for the network slice (Ianev: para[133-145], “The vAMF 12 updates the network slice quota with the vNSQ 13/vNSSF 14 of the vPLMN. The vAMF 12 sends the Nnsq/nssf_NetworkSliceQuota_Update Request (UE_Id, Node_Id, S-NSSAI_1, type of NSQ service=“number of UE(s) per network slice” quota, update flag=“decrement”) message to the vNSQ 13/vNSSF 14. The vAMF 12 includes the following parameters: the UE_Id, the S-NSSAI(s)—one or more S-NSSAI for which the registration is ongoing in roaming, e.g. the S-NSSAI_1; the type of NSQ service whose value is “number of UE(s) per network slice” quota to indicate the type of the quota to be updated and an update_flag whose value is “decrement” to indicate for the quota for the S-NSSAI_1 to be decremented as a new UE is being registered for the S-NSSAI_1.”).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the 3GPP request message to further include Ianev’s UE count update information so that the receiving network function could perform network slice admission determination and maintain the corresponding registered UE count using the same signaling request, thereby improving signaling efficiency and quota management (Ianev, para[38]).
As per claim 17, Wu in view of 3GPP and Ianev teaches the independent claim 14. Wu teaches wherein the third NF comprises a session management function (SMF) (Wu: para [286-296], “The SMF determines whether to initiate a secondary authentication procedure..”).
As per claim 20, Wu in view of Venkataraman and Ianev the independent claim 14. Wu teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to, in response to the secondary authentication being unsuccessful, transmit a PDU session establishment failure message to the UE (Wu: para [245], “the SMF may determine, based on the authentication and authorization result, to reject establishment of the session #1, in other words, to terminate establishment of the session #1. Alternatively, the SMF may determine, based on a failure reason of the authentication and authorization, whether to terminate the establishment of the session #1.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Pub. 20230087407 A1; Hereinafter “Wu”) in view of 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of network slicing; Hereinafter “3GPP”), Ianev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0264427 A1; Hereinafter “Ianev”), and Venkataraman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0368421 A1; Hereinafter “Venkataraman”)
As per claim 18, Wu in view of 3GPP and Ianev teaches the independent claim 14. Venkataraman teaches wherein the second NF comprises a network slice admission control function (NSACF) (Venkataraman: para[172-182], “In response to receiving the address/pointer of the NSQ, the SMF may send a registration request 1028 to the NSQ”, para[06], “The NSQ node is said to implement a network slice quota function, or equivalently, a network slice access control function (NSACF). The NSQ node may also be referred to as an NSACF node.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wu’s NSSAA based registration handling to further perform, after successfully slice-specific authentication, a network slice admission control availability check and corresponding update of the number of registered UEs for the requested slice as taught by Venkataraman. It will ensure that slice admission is based not only on successful NSSAA, but also on slice capacity thereby maintaining an accurate per slice UE registration count across network functions (Venkataraman, para[181]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240323708 A1 - a method for handling a quota(s) for a network slice that supports interworking between first and second cellular communications systems .
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 LYDIA L NOEL whose telephone number is (571)272-1628. The examiner can normally be reached Odd Weeks-Monday: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM, Tuesday & Wednesday: 9:00 AM 3:00 PM. Even Weeks-Monday: 8:00 AM 4:00 PM, Tuesday through Thursday: 9:00 AM 1:00 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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at (571)-270-5143. 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.
/L.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2437
/ALEXANDER LAGOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights