DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/17/2024 and 01/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202111032979, filed on 2021/07/2022.
4. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev et al. (US 20240147235) (hereinafter Velev) in view of Merino Vazquez et al. (US 20240259979) (hereinafter Merino Vazquez).
Regarding claims 1 and 3:
As shown in figures 1-13, Velev discloses an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (figure 3, also see AMF in figures 4-8), comprising one or more memories (304 in figure 3) storing instructions and one or more processors (302 in figure 3) configured to execute the instructions (par 0057-0063) to:
receive, from a User equipment (UE) (figure 2, also see UE in figures 4, 7-8), a registration request message (see 802 in figure 8),
wherein the registration request message includes requested Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) (see 804 in figure 8. In par 0113 Velev teaches “in step 804, an AMF determines to first perform a registration procedure and put the S-NSSAI in the pending NSSAI sent in a registration accept message transmitted to the UE”), and
wherein the requested NSSAI includes Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (see 804 in figure 8);
send, to the UE, allowed NSSAI including the S-NSSAI (see allow message in steps 804-810 in figure 8);
process a first Non-Access Stratum (NAS) message related to the S-NSSSAI while the AMF waits for a response related to the S-NSSAI from a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) (see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0106, 0116, 0118-0121); and
send, to the UE, a de-registration request message after the AMF waits for the response related to the S-NSSAI from the NSACF (see NSACF in figures 4-6) (in par 0118, Velev teaches “In step 814, if the reply from the NSACF is negative (e.g., the UE is not admitted), the AMF performs the UCU procedure to include the S-NSSAI in the list of rejected S-NSSAI (e.g., with a reject cause value due to failed NSAC and/or optionally a back-off timer”. Also see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0116, 0106, 0118-0121),
wherein the de-registration request message includes rejected NSSAI (see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0116, 0106, 0118-0121, 0136), and
wherein the rejected NSSAI includes the S-NSSAI (see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0116, 0106, 0118-0121).
Velev discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching in a case where an Early Admission Control (EAC) mode is deactivated for the S-NSSAI.
However, Merino Vazquez in the same field of endeavor teaches in a case where an Early Admission Control (EAC) mode is deactivated for the S-NSSAI (par 0003, 0083-0085, 0090-0082, 0104, 0144-0149). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Early Admission Control (EAC) mode as taught by Merino Vazquez to modify the system and method of Velev in order to indicate in the network slice selection procedure the support of “early rejection and/or early admission control (par 0084) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 2 and 4:
As shown in figures 1-13, Velev discloses method of a User equipment (UE) (figure 2, also see UE in figures 4, 7-8) comprising one or more memories (204 in figure 2) storing instructions and one or more processors (202 in figure 2) configured to execute the instructions to (par 0049-0056):
send, to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (figure 3, also see AMF in figures 4-8), a registration request message (figure 2, also see UE in figures 4, 7-8),
wherein the registration request message includes requested Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) (see 804 in figure 8. In par 0113 Velev teaches “in step 804, an AMF determines to first perform a registration procedure and put the S-NSSAI in the pending NSSAI sent in a registration accept message transmitted to the UE”), and
wherein the requested NSSAI includes Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (see 804 in figure 8);
receive, from the AMF, allowed NSSAI including the S-NSSAI (see allow message in steps 804-810 in figure 8); and
receive, from the AMF, a de-registration request message after a response related to the S-NSSAI from a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) is waited (see NSACF in figures 4-6) (in par 0118, Velev teaches “In step 814, if the reply from the NSACF is negative (e.g., the UE is not admitted), the AMF performs the UCU procedure to include the S-NSSAI in the list of rejected S-NSSAI (e.g., with a reject cause value due to failed NSAC and/or optionally a back-off timer”. Also see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0116, 0106, 0118-0121),
wherein the de-registration request message includes rejected NSSAI (see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0116, 0106, 0118-0121, 0136), and
wherein the rejected NSSAI includes the S-NSSAI (see steps 806, 816 and 814, par 0083, 0116, 0106, 0118-0121, 0136).
Velev discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching in a case where an Early Admission Control (EAC) mode is deactivated for the S-NSSAI.
However, Merino Vazquez in the same field of endeavor teaches in a case where an Early Admission Control (EAC) mode is deactivated for the S-NSSAI (par 0003, 0083-0085, 0090-0082, 0104, 0144-0149). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Early Admission Control (EAC) mode as taught by Merino Vazquez to modify the system and method of Velev in order to indicate in the network slice selection procedure the support of “early rejection and/or early admission control (par 0084) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et a. (US 11202330) disclose a registration method of a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system is disclosed. The registration method includes transmitting a registration request message to an access and mobility management function (AMF), wherein the registration request message includes requested network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) including single (S)-NSSAI corresponding to a network slice to which the UE intends to register with; and receiving, from the AMF, a registration accept message as a response to the registration request message, wherein if at least one of the S-NSSAI included in the requested NSSAI is rejected by the AMF, the registration accept message includes the rejected S-NSSAI and a reason for refusal for the rejected S-NSSAI.
WATFA et al. (US 20210306972) disclose a 5G communication system comprising a method for transmitting, by the UE to a network entity, a registration request message including a registration type information element (IE) indicating a periodic registration updating or a mobility registration updating; receiving, by the UE from the network entity, a registration accept message including a pending network slice selection assistant information (NSSAI); and determining, by the UE, that a previously received allowed NSSAI as invalid based on the registration accept message.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631