58150
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 the Request for Continuation filed on 11/25/2025.
In the instant Amendment, claims 1, 14, 15-16 have been amended; and claims 1, 14, and 14-15 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 regarding claim 1, 14, and 15-16 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, which were necessitated by amendment.
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 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wafta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210306972 A1; Hereinafter “Wafta”) in view of 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Study on enhancement of network slicing; Hereinafter “3GPP”), Venkataraman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0368421 A1; Hereinafter “Venkataraman”), and Ianev et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0264427 A1; Hereinafter “Ianev”).
As per claim 1, Wafta teaches an apparatus for performing a first network function (NF) (AMF), the apparatus further comprising (Wafta: 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 (Wafta: 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 (Wafta: 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.”);
determine to perform a registration procedure by transmitting 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 (Wafta: 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”).
Wafta 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 an availability check message for network slice admission control to a second NF; transmit a network slice admission control update message to the second NF, wherein the network slice admission control update message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs.
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 an availability check message to a second NF (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 Wafta’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.
Wafta in view of 3GPP does not explicitly teach transmit a network slice admission control update message to the second NF, wherein the network slice admission control update message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs.
However, in the related art, Venkataraman teaches transmit a network slice admission control update message to the second NF (Venkataraman: para[06-07], [93], [122-126], “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… The query message may represent an inquiry on whether there is available quota for an addition of the first UE to a number of user equipments using the network slice. In response to receiving a positive response to the query message, the network node may send a quota update message that requests the network slice quota node to update the available quota.”).
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 Wafta’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]).
Wafta in view of 3GPP and Venkataraman does not explicitly teach wherein the network slice admission control update message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs.
However, in the related art, Ianev teaches wherein the network slice admission control update message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs (Lanev: 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 a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wafta’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 Ianev. 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 (Ianev, para[38]).
Furthermore, Wafta also teaches the UE and hardware components of claims 15-16 such a user equipment and a processor for wireless communication (Wafta: para[110], “A user equipment (UE), the UE comprising: a transceiver; and at least one processor configured to control the transceiver to”).
As pert claim 2, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1. 3GPP teaches wherein the availability check message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs for the NSSAI (3GPP: page 22-23, step 1-6, “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 Wafta’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 3, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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 4, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1.
Wafta 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 Wafta’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 W Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman and Ianev 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 Wafta’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 6, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 availability check 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 Wafta’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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman and Ianev teaches the dependent claim 6. Wafta teaches transmit a configuration update to the UE, wherein the configuration update comprises an allowed NSSAI including the network slice (Wafta: 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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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, Wafta in view of 3GPP, Venkataraman and Ianev teaches the independent claim 1. Wafta teaches wherein the network slice is identified by a single NSSAI (Wafta: 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 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 Venkataraman et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210368421 A1; Hereinafter “Venkataraman”), 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 an availability check message for network slice admission control to a second NF.
However, in the related art Venkataraman transmit an availability check message to a second NF (NSQ 1016) (Venkataraman: para [93-97], [117-120], [172-182], “In response to receiving the address/pointer of the NSQ, the SMF may send a registration request 1028 to the NSQ. The registration request represents a request for the registration of a PDU session on the network slice…. In response to registration request, the NSQ may check the slice-specific list corresponding to the S-NSAAI value (as shown at 1130), to determine whether the requested pair of UE ID and PDU session ID is already on the list. (This check may be referred to as a duplication prevention check.) If so, the NSQ does not add the requested pair to the list, and does not increment the number of registered pairs (or equivalently, does not decrement the available quota). If not, and if the maximum allowed number of registered pairs associated with the S-NSAAI value has not been reached, the NSQ may add the requested pair to the list, and increment the number of registered pairs (or equivalently, decrement the available quota)”); and
transmit a network slice admission control update message to the second NF (Venkataraman: para[06-07], [93], [122-126], “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… The query message may represent an inquiry on whether there is available quota for an addition of the first UE to a number of user equipments using the network slice. In response to receiving a positive response to the query message, the network node may send a quota update message that requests the network slice quota node to update the available quota.”).
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 Wafta’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]).
Wafta in view of Venkataraman does not explicitly teach wherein the network slice admission control update message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs.
However, in the related art, Ianev teaches wherein the network slice admission control update message comprises information indicating to update a number of registered UEs (Lanev: 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 a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wafta’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 Ianev. 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 (Ianev, para[38]).
As per claim 17, Wu in view of Venkataraman 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 18, Wu in view of Venkataraman 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 Wafta’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]).
As per claim 19, Wu in view of Venkataraman and Ianev teaches the independent claim 14. Venkataraman teaches wherein the availability check message comprises information indicating to update a number of PDU sessions for the NSSAI (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. The registration request represents a request for the registration of a PDU session on the network slice. The registration request may include the S-NSSAI value of the network slice, the PDU session ID, and a control mode indicator set equal to “PDU sessions… and if the maximum allowed number of registered pairs associated with the S-NSAAI value has not been reached, the NSQ may add the requested pair to the list, and increment the number of registered pairs (or equivalently, decrement the available quota)”).
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 Wafta’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]).
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.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210212010 A1 “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REGISTERING WITH NETWORK SLICE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM”, A method of a network function (NF) entity performing communication in a wireless communication system includes: in case that a first registration request of a user equipment (UE) for a slice is received at an access and mobility function (AMF) entity through a first network, receiving a first slice availability request message for the slice from the AMF entity; determining whether the slice is available for the UE, based on a network slice policy; and transmitting, to the AMF entity, a response message including information regarding slice availability of the UE according to the first registration request, wherein in case that a second registration request of the UE for the slice is received at the AMF entity through a second network, slice availability of the UE according to the second registration request is determined based on at least one of the network slice policy or the information regarding the slice availability of the UE according to the first registration request .
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 Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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 on (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
/MENG LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights