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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 1/11/2024 are considered.
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 5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a request" in line 7. It is unclear if this request is the same one of line 4 or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the core network node" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the second core network node" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a request" in line 6. It is unclear if this request is the same one of line 3 or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, 6-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al (Lee), US 2022/0312305.
As per claim 1, Lee teaches the invention including a first core network node comprising:
A memory (pp. 0139-0140); and
At least one processor configured to access the memory (pp. 0139-0141) and configured to:
Request a second core network node to update a number of user equipments (UEs) registered to a network slice, wherein the second core network node is configured to manage the network slice (pp. 0100-0123, 0132-0137);
Request the second core network node to update a number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions for a specific network slices (pp. 0084-0086); and
Receive, from the second core network node, information indicating a failure related to an update of the number of the PDU sessions (pp. 0086).
As per claim 2, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and further configured to invoke an updating of the information, which decreases a UE count, wherein the information is related to the number of the UE to decrease an UE count (pp. 0128-0129).
As per claim 3, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to invoke updating of the information indicating the failure related to the update of the number of the PDU sessions (pp. 0084-0086, 0128-0129).
As per claim 4, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the information indicating the failure is received after requesting the second core network node for a network slice management to update the number of the UEs and requesting the second core network node to update the number of PDU sessions (pp. 0084-0086).
As per claim 6, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the first network node is a network slice admission control function (pp. 0011-0012, 0033, 0060).
As per claim 7, Lee teaches the invention including a second core network node for a network slice management comprising:
Memory (pp. 0139-0140); and
At least one processor configured to access the memory (pp. 0139-0140) and configured to:
Receive a request, from a first core network node, to update a number of user equipments (UEs) registered to a network slice (pp. 0100-0123, 0132-0137);
Receive a request, from the first core network node, to update a number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions for a specific network slices (pp. 0084-0086); and
Send, to the first core network node, information indicating a failure related to an update of the number of the PDU sessions (pp. 0086).
As per claim 8, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Lee further teaches wherein the information indicating the failure is sent to the first core network node to invoke update information related to the number of the UE (pp. 0084-0086, 0128-0129, 0132-0137).
As per claim 9, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Lee further teaches wherein the update information related to the number of the UEs to decreases the UE count is invoked based on the information indicating the failure (pp. 0084-0086, 0128-0129).
As per claim 10, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Lee further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and configured to send the information indicating the failure after receiving the request to update the number of the UEs and receiving the request to update the number of PDU sessions (pp. 0084-0086).
As per claim 12, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Lee further teaches wherein the sconed core network node for network slice management is network slice admission control function (pp. 0011-0012, 0033, 0060).
As per claim 13, Lee teaches the invention including method for a first core network node, the method comprising:
Requesting the second core network node to update a number of user equipments (UEs) registered to a network slice, wherein the second core network node is configured to manage the network slice (pp. 0100-0123, 0132-0137);
Requesting the second core network node to update a number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions for a specific network slices (pp. 0084-0086); and
Receiving, from the second core network node, information indicating a failure related to an update of the number of the PDU sessions (pp. 0086).
As per claim 14, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Lee further teaches to comprise invoking an updating of the information related to the number of the UEs, which decreases UE count (pp. 0128-0129).
As per claim 15, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 14. Lee further teaches wherein updating of the information related to the number of the UEs, which decrease the UE count, is invoked based on the information indicating the failure (pp. 0084-0086, 0128-0129).
As per claim 16, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Lee further teaches wherein the information indicating the failure is received after requesting the second core network node to update the number of the UEs and requesting the second core network node to update the number of PDU sessions (pp. 0084-0086).
As per claim 18, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Lee further teaches wherein the second network node is a network slice admission control function (pp. 0011-0012, 0033, 0060).
As per claim 19, Lee teaches the invention including a method for a second core network node for a network slice management, the method comprising:
Receiving a request, from a first core network node, to update a number of user equipments (UEs) registered to a network slice (pp. 0100-0123, 0132-0137);
Receiving a request, from the first core network node, to update a number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) sessions for a specific network slices (pp. 0084-0086); and
Sending, to the first core network node, information indicating a failure related to an update of the number of the PDU sessions (pp. 0086).
As per claim 20, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 19. Lee further teaches wherein the information indicating the failure is sent to the first core network node to invoke update information related to the number of UE to decrease UE count (pp. 0084-0086, 0128-0129).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (Lee), US 2022/0312305, in view of Sugawara, JP2022-173615A, filed on 5/10/2021 and published on 11/22/2022.
As per claim 5, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. Lee further teaches the core network node is a session management function (SMF) node (pp. 0033, 0060). Lee does not teach wherein the core network node is a combination of session management function (SMF) node and a packet data network gateway control plane node (PGW-C). Sugawara teaches the core network node is a combination of session management function (SMF) node and a packet data network gateway control plane node (PGW-C) (figure 2: SMF + PGW-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Lee and Sugawara and implement the device and functions in a single network node that utilize the same physical hardware and/or software and reduce system cost.
As per claim 11, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7. Lee further teaches the core network node is a session management function (SMF) node (pp. 0033, 0060). Lee does not teach wherein the second core network node is a combination of session management function (SMF) node and packet data network plane node (PGW-C). Sugawara teaches the core network node is a combination of session management function (SMF) node and a packet data network gateway control plane node (PGW-C) (figure 2: SMF + PGW-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Lee and Sugawara and implement the device and functions in a single network node that utilize the same physical hardware and/or software and reduce system cost.
As per claim 17, Lee teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. Lee further teaches the core network node is a session management function (SMF) node (pp. 0033, 0060). Lee does not teach wherein the core network node is a combination of session management function (SMF) node and a packet data network gateway control plane node (PGW-C). Sugawara teaches the core network node is a combination of session management function (SMF) node and a packet data network gateway control plane node (PGW-C) (figure 2: SMF + PGW-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teaching of Lee and Sugawara and implement the device and functions in a single network node that utilize the same physical hardware and/or software and reduce system cost.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Velev et al, US 2024/0236912
Sama et al, EP4068848A1
A shortened statutory period for reply to this Office action is set to expire Three MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY S LIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3968.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
KENNY S. LIN
Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/Kenny S Lin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
February 9, 2026