DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RCE filed 9/18/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 1-14 remain pending.
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)(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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US20220159605A1; supported by Provisional Application 62/817811), hereafter Li.
Regarding claims 1 and 8,
Li discloses a method performed by a network function (NF; Fig. 10, NCMF) in a wireless communication system comprising a transceiver and at least one processor (paragraph 164) coupled with and configured to control the transceiver to perform the method comprising receiving, from NEF (Fig. 10, step 2a; network capability configuration request received at NCMF from NEF), a request message comprising S-NSSAI indicating a network slice and information associated with a number of PDU sessions (Fig. 10, step 2a request includes NSSAIs which may be a single S-NSSAI, capability information including QoS and how many applications/sessions request use of the requested capabilities; paragraph 180, 422-429).
Li shows identifying whether a notification condition is satisfied based on the request message and the information associated with the number of PDU sessions, and in the case the notification condition is satisfied, transmitting, to the NEF, an event notification message (Fig. 10, steps 3-8; paragraphs 430-444; NCMF acquires subscription information and network slice information of the UE, checks/verifies if the requested network capabilities can be provided/supported through notification/response signaling to update UE registration at the NEF (step 8) of the applications and capabilities supported by the network slice).
Regarding claims 2 and 9,
Li discloses the event notification message comprises information for a current number of PDU sessions on the network slice (paragraph 195-199, 211-231; sessions per applications running on the UE that will use the network capabilities requested; see also Provisional ‘811 paragraphs 156-159).
Regarding claims 3, 4, 10, and 11,
Li discloses storing the information associated with the number of PDU sessions and updating a condition of the network slice based on the information associated with the number of PDU sessions (Fig. 9, step 13; Fig. 10, step 8; paragraph 387-396; UE updates registration at the NEF of the applications and capabilities supported by the network slice; see also Provisional ‘811 paragraphs 176-206).
Regarding claims 5 and 12,
Li discloses request message comprises information associated with a number of UEs and monitoring a current number of UEs registered for the network slice and determining whether the event triggering condition for the network slice is satisfied based on the current number of UEs and the information associated with the number of UEs (paragraph 175, 203, Table 4, paragraphs 309-341; see also Provisional ‘811 paragraphs 7, 117, 151; number of UEs and volume restriction per UE).
Regarding claims 6 and 13,
Li discloses monitoring a current number of PDU sessions established for the network slice and determining whether the notification condition for the network slice is satisfied based on the current number of PDU sessions and the maximum number of PDU sessions for the network slice (paragraph 460-461; paragraphs 477-498; network related condition information such as maximum number of PDU sessions/users stored in the NEF via application-level request).
Regarding claims 7 and 14,
Li discloses the event notification triggering condition comprises at least one of a first condition that a current number of UEs for the network slice is equal to or greater than the maximum number of UEs for the network slice or a second condition that a current number of PDU sessions successfully established for the network slice is equal to or greater than the maximum number of PDU sessions for the network slice (paragraph 460-461, 477-490, 499-503; notification maximum PDU sessions or UE registrations has been reached; see Provisional ‘811 paragraphs 7, 117, 151; number of UEs and volume restriction per UE ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8-9 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Li does not disclose “identifying whether a notification condition is satisfied based on the request message and the information associated with the number of PDU sessions on the request message. Applicant further alleges claimed aspects require “an NF receives from an AF” a request message, and the NF notifies the AF of the event, characterizing Li as not providing the AMF a request message including a request to be notified when a slice reaches the number of PDU sessions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is firstly noted that the claims, as amended, do not require an “AF” or “AMF” at all. To the contrary, the claims expressly require a “network function”, such as the NCMF in Li, to perform the steps of receiving the request message from a NEF (steps 2a-b), identifying the notification condition is satisfied based on the request message (steps 3-7), and transmitting the event notification to the NEF (step 8), all of which is expressly shown through the cited disclosure in Li. Therefore, the rejections based on Li are properly maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477