DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to claims filed on 01/11/2024. Claims 1-6 are pending for evaluation.
Note: The claims are presented with independent claims listed first in numerical order, followed by dependent claims also in numerical order; any dual or mirror claims are grouped with the lowest-numbered claim in their respective pairing.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/11/2024, 12/18/2024, 06/02/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/11/2024 has been entered. Claims 4 and 6 have been amended; Claims 1-6 remain pending for evaluation.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “…wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and configured to: requesting requests the PDU Session…” needs to be rewritten as “…wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and configured to: request the PDU Session…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2022/0159605), Li hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a method performed by a radio terminal comprising (Fig. 15, Para. [0478-0486]; See also Fig. 8, Para. [0344-0384]; Fig. 9, Para. [0385-0414]; Fig. 10, Para. [0418-0444]; Fig. 13, Para. [0445-0457]; Fig. 14, Para. [0459-0477]; Fig. 16, Para. [0487-0496]; Fig. 17, Para. [0497-0507] ):
receiving, from a core network, a reject message related to a first access type with information including maximum number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session per network slice reached (Fig. 15, Para. [0478-0486] - [0482] In Step 3, the rest of the PDU Session Establishment procedure from TS 23.501 is executed and the PDU Sessions Establishment Response is sent to the UE. If the NCMF indicated to the AMF or SMF that the PDU Session should not be allowed (i.e. that the Slice has reached the maximum number of PDU Sessions), then the AMF or SMF may send an Error/Cause Code to the UE indicating that the network slice has attained its maximum limit for PDU sessions count and reject the request. In this case, the UE may re-evaluate its URSP rules and attempt to establish a PDU session within a different slice. The response may also include a wait timer, which indicates how long the UE must wait before attempting to establish a PDU Sessions within the same slice. Although the UE may reset the wait timer and attempt again if it terminates a PDU session with the same slice before the wait timer expires. The wait time may be integrated into Time Window (Route Selection Validation Criteria) in the URSP rules. Hence, URSP rule is re-evaluated before reattempting to establish a PDU session; See also Fig. 8, Para. [0344-0384]; Fig. 9, Para. [0385-0414]; Fig. 10, Para. [0418-0444]; Fig. 13, Para. [0445-0457]; Fig. 14, Para. [0459-0477]; Fig. 16, Para. [0487-0496]; Fig. 17, Para. [0497-0507]);
and requesting a PDU Session via a second access type (Fig. 15, Para. [0478-0486] - [0482] In Step 3, the rest of the PDU Session Establishment procedure from TS 23.501 is executed and the PDU Sessions Establishment Response is sent to the UE. If the NCMF indicated to the AMF or SMF that the PDU Session should not be allowed (i.e. that the Slice has reached the maximum number of PDU Sessions), then the AMF or SMF may send an Error/Cause Code to the UE indicating that the network slice has attained its maximum limit for PDU sessions count and reject the request. In this case, the UE may re-evaluate its URSP rules and attempt to establish a PDU session within a different slice. The response may also include a wait timer, which indicates how long the UE must wait before attempting to establish a PDU Sessions within the same slice. Although the UE may reset the wait timer and attempt again if it terminates a PDU session with the same slice before the wait timer expires. The wait time may be integrated into Time Window (Route Selection Validation Criteria) in the URSP rules. Hence, URSP rule is re-evaluated before reattempting to establish a PDU session; See also Fig. 8, Para. [0344-0384]; Fig. 9, Para. [0385-0414]; Fig. 10, Para. [0418-0444]; Fig. 13, Para. [0445-0457]; Fig. 14, Para. [0459-0477]; Fig. 16, Para. [0487-0496]; Fig. 17, Para. [0497-0507]).
Examiner’s Note: Li teaches a method performed by a radio terminal (i.e., UE) in which the UE receives, from the core network (I.e., AMF or SMF), a reject message related to a first access type, where the access type corresponds to a network slice (NSSAI), and the reject message includes information indicating that a maximum number of PDU sessions for that slice has been reached. Li further teaches that, in response to the rejection, the UE re-evaluates USRP rules and attempts to establish a PDU session using a different slice, i.e., a second access type, thereby requesting a PDU session via the second access type as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Li teaches a radio terminal comprising (Fig. 1B, Para. [0115-0124]; See also Fig. 1A, Para. [0101-0114]; Fig. 1C, Para. [0125-0130]; Fig. 1D, Para. [0131-0138]; Fig. 1E, Para. [0139-0146]; Fig. 1F, [0147-0156]; Fig. 1G, Para. [0157-0164]; Figs. 2A-B, Para. [0165-0168]):
a memory ;and at least one processor configured to access the memory and configured to: (Fig. 1B, elements 120, 130, and 132, Para. [0115-0124]; See also Fig. 1A, Para. [0101-0114]; Fig. 1C, Para. [0125-0130]; Fig. 1D, Para. [0131-0138]; Fig. 1E, Para. [0139-0146]; Fig. 1F, [0147-0156]; Fig. 1G, Para. [0157-0164]; Figs. 2A-B, Para. [0165-0168]),
receiving, from a core network, a reject message related to a first access type with information including maximum number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session per network slice reached (Fig. 15, Para. [0478-0486]; See also Fig. 8, Para. [0344-0384]; Fig. 9, Para. [0385-0414]; Fig. 10, Para. [0418-0444]; Fig. 13, Para. [0445-0457]; Fig. 14, Para. [0459-0477]; Fig. 16, Para. [0487-0496]; Fig. 17, Para. [0497-0507]);
and requesting a PDU Session via a second access type (Fig. 15, Para. [0478-0486]; See also Fig. 8, Para. [0344-0384]; Fig. 9, Para. [0385-0414]; Fig. 10, Para. [0418-0444]; Fig. 13, Para. [0445-0457]; Fig. 14, Para. [0459-0477]; Fig. 16, Para. [0487-0496]; Fig. 17, Para. [0497-0507] ).
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Li teaches Claims 1 and 4.
Li further teaches
wherein the information includes at least one of a Back off timer (BOT) and the first access type (Fig. 15, Para. [0478-0486] - [0482] In Step 3, the rest of the PDU Session Establishment procedure from TS 23.501 is executed and the PDU Sessions Establishment Response is sent to the UE. If the NCMF indicated to the AMF or SMF that the PDU Session should not be allowed (i.e. that the Slice has reached the maximum number of PDU Sessions), then the AMF or SMF may send an Error/Cause Code to the UE indicating that the network slice has attained its maximum limit for PDU sessions count and reject the request. In this case, the UE may re-evaluate its URSP rules and attempt to establish a PDU session within a different slice. The response may also include a wait timer, which indicates how long the UE must wait before attempting to establish a PDU Sessions within the same slice. Although the UE may reset the wait timer and attempt again if it terminates a PDU session with the same slice before the wait timer expires. The wait time may be integrated into Time Window (Route Selection Validation Criteria) in the URSP rules. Hence, URSP rule is re-evaluated before reattempting to establish a PDU session; See also Fig. 8, Para. [0344-0384]; Fig. 9, Para. [0385-0414]; Fig. 10, Para. [0418-0444]; Fig. 13, Para. [0445-0457]; Fig. 14, Para. [0459-0477]; Fig. 16, Para. [0487-0496]; Fig. 17, Para. [0497-0507]).
The examiner interprets a “wait timer” as a BOT.
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 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) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Watfa et al. (US 2019/0223093), Watfa hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches Claim 2.
Yet, Li does not expressly teach wherein the PDU Session via the second access type is requested while the BOT is running.
However, Watfa teaches
wherein the PDU Session via the second access type is requested while the BOT is running (Fig. 6; Para. [0129] - A WTRU may receive an explicit indication of a back-off timer (e.g., from the network and/or an AMF). The indication may instruct the WTRU to deactivate an inactive PDU session associated with a congested slice. The indication may instruct the WTRU to deactivate active and/or inactive PDU sessions associated with a congested slice. The WTRU may request a new network slice selection policy (NSSP), e.g., from a policy function. The policy function may reside in a network, for example. When requesting the new NSSP, the WTRU may indicate that a particular slice is congested. The policy function may provide a new NSSAI/S-NSSAI for the WTRU, e.g., upon receiving a request for a new NSSP from the WTRU. The WTRU may send a PDU session request (e.g., a session management request) with the new S-NSSAI received from the policy function; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0104-0122]; Fig. 5, Para. [0123-0124]; Fig. 6, Para. [0125-0138]).
Examiner’s Note: Watfa teaches that, upon receiving an explicit indication of a BOT from the network and/or AMF, the WTRU may request a new network slice selection policy (NSSP) and subsequently request establishment of a PDU session using the new slice while the BOT is active. Because the BOT governs when PDU sessions associated with a congested slice are restricted, and Wafta expressly permits requesting a new NSSP and initiating a PDU session in response to the BOT indication, Watfa teaches requesting the PDU session via the second access type while the BOT is running.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s invention of “methods and apparatus for configuring desired network capabilities in a service-based network” (Li Para. [0005]) with Watfa’s invention of “systems, methods, and instrumentalities” “disclosed for network slice selection and/or reselection” (Watfa Para. [0003]) because Watfa’s invention provides mechanisms that enable a WTRU to determine, based on updated network slice information and configured policies, that a currently used network slice should be replaced with a different network slice and to establish connectivity with the appropriate access and mobility management function for the selected slice (Watfa Para. [0003-0006]).
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches Claim 5.
Yet, Li does not expressly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and configured to: requesting requests the PDU Session via the second access type while the BOT is running.
However, Watfa teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and configured to: requesting requests the PDU Session via the second access type while the BOT is running (Fig. 6; Para. [0129]; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0104-0122]; Fig. 5, Para. [0123-0124]; Fig. 6, Para. [0125-0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s invention of “methods and apparatus for configuring desired network capabilities in a service-based network” (Li Para. [0005]) with Watfa’s invention of “systems, methods, and instrumentalities” “disclosed for network slice selection and/or reselection” (Watfa Para. [0003]) because Watfa’s invention provides mechanisms that enable a WTRU to determine, based on updated network slice information and configured policies, that a currently used network slice should be replaced with a different network slice and to establish connectivity with the appropriate access and mobility management function for the selected slice (Watfa Para. [0003-0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAENITA ANN FENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0880. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:30 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, Marcus Smith can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
R.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/Thomas R Cairns/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468