DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/576028 filed on 1/2/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation ends with a period instead of “;” see “…number of PDU Sessions.” [Emphasis added]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Foti US 2024/0276350 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Foti teaches a method performed by a network entity (Fig. 6), the method comprising:
receiving a first message requesting to establish or release a protocol data unit (PDU) session for a user equipment (UE), wherein the first message is received from a source network entity (Fig. 6 & ¶0057-¶0058; anchor SMF [source network entity] triggers [see fig. 6 for first message] the Number of PDU Sessions per network slice availability check for a UE and update procedure for the network slices that are subject to NSAC at the beginning of a PDU Session);
determining to perform a network slice availability check procedure to increase or decrease a number of PDU sessions for a network slice (Fig. 6 & ¶0055; determining the number of PDU Sessions per network slice availability check and update procedure is to update (i.e. increase or decrease) the number of PDU Sessions established on S-NSSAI which is subject to NSAC. The SMF is configured with the information indicating which network slice is subject to NSAC);
and sending a second message to a network slice access control function (NSACF) entity requesting to increase or decrease number of PDU sessions for the network slice (Fig. 6 & ¶0059; Step 2: The anchor SMF sends Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckAndUpdate_Request message to the NSACF. The anchor SMF includes in the message the UE ID, S-NSSAI for which the number of PDU Sessions per network slice update is required, the PDU session ID for the session to be established by the PDU, modified PDU session ID when it replaces an existing PDU Session ID for a UE ID, and the update flag which indicates that the number of PDUs established on the S-NSSAI is to be increased if the procedure is triggered at the beginning of PDU Session Establishment procedure or indicates that the number of PDU Sessions on the S-NSSAI is to be decreased if the procedure is triggered at the end of PDU Sessions Release procedure), wherein the second message comprises an access type parameter (Fig. 6 & ¶0062; Step 3: The NSACF updates the current number of PDU Sessions established on the S-NSSAI, i.e. increase or decrease the number of PDU Sessions per network slice based on the information provided by the anchor SMF in the update flag parameter [access type parameter]).
Regarding Claim 4, Foti further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a core network type comprises at least one of an evolved packet core (EPC) or a 5G core (5GC) (Fig. 1; 5G core network).
Regarding Claim 5, Foti further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining not to send the second message to increase the number of PDU sessions for the network slice identified by the network slice (S-NSSAI) if there is already an existing PDU session for the UE for the same access type (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; Anchor SMFs that receive an old and new PDU Session ID from a UE in support of SSC mode 3, do not provide an update flag, but provides to the NSCAF a PDU Session ID corresponding to the old PDU Session ID received from the UE, and a modified PDU session that corresponds to the new PDU Session ID received from the UE…If the update flag parameter is absent, the NSCAF locates the UE ID, replaces the existing PDU session ID with the modified PDU Session ID. In this case, the NSCAF returns a successful outcome).
Regarding Claim 6, Foti further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a reject message for the UE from the NSACF entity, the reject message including an indication as to which access type or core network type the rejection applies (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; Step 4: The NSACF acknowledges the update to the SMF with Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckAndUpdate_Response message. If the NSACF returned maximum number of PDU Sessions per network slice reached result, the SMF rejects the PDU Session establishment request with maximum number of PDU Sessions per network slice reached reject cause. In case of a PDU Session Establishment failure, the anchor SMF triggers another request to the NSACF with the update flag parameter equal to decrease in order to re-adjust back the PDU Session counter in the NSACF);
and sending the reject message to the UE with the indication as to which access type or core network type the rejection applies (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; Step 4: The NSACF acknowledges the update to the SMF with Nnsacf_NumberOfPDUsPerSliceAvailabilityCheckAndUpdate_Response message. If the NSACF returned maximum number of PDU Sessions per network slice reached result, the SMF rejects the PDU Session establishment request with maximum number of PDU Sessions per network slice reached reject cause. In case of a PDU Session Establishment failure, the anchor SMF triggers another request to the NSACF with the update flag parameter equal to decrease in order to re-adjust back the PDU Session counter in the NSACF).
Regarding Claim 7, Foti further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining if the first message is a first data connection for the UE (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; Anchor SMF determines PDU sessions per slice availability only for new PDU [first data connection for the UE]); wherein sending the second message to the NSACF entity is performed in response to determining that the first message is the first data connection for the UE (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; Anchor SMF determines PDU sessions per slice availability only for new PDU [first data connection for the UE], the system responds accordingly).
Regarding Claim 8, Foti further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising sending a third message to the NSACF entity requesting an increase of the number of PDU sessions established in the network slice (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; steps 2-3. increase and decrees).
Claims 11, 14, 16-18 are substantially similar to claims above, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 20, Foti teaches the network entity of claim 8, Foti further teaches wherein the third message includes at least one of a core network type parameter or an access type parameter, both used currently by the UE to establish the PDU session (Fig. 6 & ¶0062; Step 3: The NSACF updates the current number of PDU Sessions established on the S-NSSAI, i.e. increase or decrease the number of PDU Sessions per network slice based on the information provided by the anchor SMF in the update flag parameter [access type parameter]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 9-10, 12, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti in view of Ianev et al. (hereinafter Ianev) US 2024/0259932 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Foti further teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein determining is further responsive to the source network entity being disposed in an evolved packet core (EPC) and the network slice being subject to admission control for a maximum number of UEs.
Ianeve teaches wherein determining is further responsive to the source network entity being disposed in an evolved packet core (EPC) and the network slice being subject to admission control for a maximum number of UEs (¶0011 & ¶0013; a method of a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) apparatus includes receiving a message from a Session Management Function (SMF) apparatus. The message includes first information related to a handover from Evolved Packet System (EPS) to 5th Generation System (5GS) and second information indicating a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSAC) is not supported in the EPS. The method includes accepting a PDU Session related to the handover in a case where the number of PDU Sessions on the 5GS reaches to a predetermined threshold value and the message includes the first information and the second information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Ianev into the system of Foti in order to accept a registration of a User Equipment (UE) related to the handover in a case where the number of UEs registered on 5GS reaches to a predetermined threshold value and the message includes the first information and the second information (¶0013).
Regarding Claim 9, Foti further teaches the method of claim 8, but does not teach wherein the third message is sent to the NSACF entity in response to the source network entity being disposed in an evolved packet core (EPC) and the network slice being subject to admission control for a maximum number of PDU Sessions.
Ianev teaches wherein the third message is sent to the NSACF entity in response to the source network entity being disposed in an evolved packet core (EPC) and the network slice being subject to admission control for a maximum number of PDU Sessions (¶0011 & ¶0013; a method of a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) apparatus includes receiving a message from a Session Management Function (SMF) apparatus. The message includes first information related to a handover from Evolved Packet System (EPS) to 5th Generation System (5GS) and second information indicating a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSAC) is not supported in the EPS. The method includes accepting a PDU Session related to the handover in a case where the number of PDU Sessions on the 5GS reaches to a predetermined threshold value and the message includes the first information and the second information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Ianev into the system of Foti in order to accept a registration of a User Equipment (UE) related to the handover in a case where the number of UEs registered on 5GS reaches to a predetermined threshold value and the message includes the first information and the second information (¶0013).
Regarding Claim 10, Foti in view of Ianev teaches the method of claim 8, Foti further teaches wherein the third message includes at least one of a core network type parameter or an access type parameter, both used currently by the UE to establish the PDU session (Fig. 6 & ¶0062; Step 3: The NSACF updates the current number of PDU Sessions established on the S-NSSAI, i.e. increase or decrease the number of PDU Sessions per network slice based on the information provided by the anchor SMF in the update flag parameter [access type parameter]).
Claims 12 and 19 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding Claim 15, foti teaches the network entity of claim 11, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to cause the network entity to send a third message to the NSACF entity requesting an increase of the number of PDU sessions established in the network slice (Fig. 6 & ¶0054-¶0066; steps 2-3. increase and decrees);
the third message includes at least one of a core network type parameter or an access type parameter, both used currently by the UE to establish the PDU session (Fig. 6 & ¶0062; Step 3: The NSACF updates the current number of PDU Sessions established on the S-NSSAI, i.e. increase or decrease the number of PDU Sessions per network slice based on the information provided by the anchor SMF in the update flag parameter [access type parameter]).
Foti does not expressly teach “the third message is sent to the NSACF entity in response to the source network entity being disposed in an evolved packet core (EPC) and the network slice being subject to admission control for maximum number of PDU Sessions.”
Ianev teaches the third message is sent to the NSACF entity in response to the source network entity being disposed in an evolved packet core (EPC) and the network slice being subject to admission control for maximum number of PDU Sessions (¶0011 & ¶0013; a method of a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) apparatus includes receiving a message from a Session Management Function (SMF) apparatus. The message includes first information related to a handover from Evolved Packet System (EPS) to 5th Generation System (5GS) and second information indicating a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSAC) is not supported in the EPS. The method includes accepting a PDU Session related to the handover in a case where the number of PDU Sessions on the 5GS reaches to a predetermined threshold value and the message includes the first information and the second information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Ianev into the system of Foti in order to accept a registration of a User Equipment (UE) related to the handover in a case where the number of UEs registered on 5GS reaches to a predetermined threshold value and the message includes the first information and the second information (¶0013).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti in view of “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; V17.1.0 (24 June 2021) entry 5 under Non-Patent Literature Documents of IDS filed 1/2/2024 (hereinafter NPL).
Regarding Claim 3, Foti teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the access type comprises 3GPP access type responsive to the first message being sent by the source network entity being a serving gateway (SGW) entity (Fig. 1 & ¶0015, ¶0024 & ¶0053; MF 101 is an SMF+PGW-C and MF 102 is a SGW, request message 201 may be a Create Session Request);
and the access type comprises the access type parameter received in the first message being sent by the source network entity being an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (Fig. 1 & ¶0015, ¶0024 & ¶0053; where MF 101 is an SMF and MF 102 is an AMF).
Foti does not expressly teach “the access type comprises non-3GPP access responsive to the first message being sent by an evolved packet data gateway (ePDG) entity.”
NPL teaches the access type comprises non-3GPP access responsive to the first message being sent by an evolved packet data gateway (ePDG) entity (note that it is known in the art that ePDG is non-3GPP. Here, see p. 314 the entire page especially the first paragraphs, where NPL teaches over non-3GPP access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed limitation to modify Fot’s 5g core with NPL’s ePDG/non-3gpp as a core network. One skilled in the art would modify Foti’s core device in order to include various types of network devices depending on the network implementation. Utilizing such teachings enable the system to provide and access particular services.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455