DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 9 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 9 July 2026, claims 1, 7, 13, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose sending, by the AMF, a request for updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice to a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF), wherein the NSACF is a separate network function from the AMF, and wherein the request includes an identity of the AMF, an identity of the UE, and at least one S-NSSAI. Applicant further argues that the references do not disclose updating the number of UEs registered with a network slice.
The arguments are not persuasive because the rejection relies on the combined teachings of Park and Velev.
Velev expressly teaches that the Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) controls the number of UEs registered per network slice so that the maximum number of UEs per network slice is not exceeded (Velev ¶76). Velev further teaches a number-of-UEs-per-network-slice availability check procedure triggered by the AMF to determine whether the requested network slice is available based on the number of registered UEs (Velev ¶77). During the registration procedure, the AMF triggers a request to the NSACF to perform network slice admission control (Velev ¶79). Velev further teaches that the AMF sends an Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheck_Request message to the NSACF, wherein the request includes a UE identifier (ID) and one or more S-NSSAIs corresponding to the requested network slice (Velev ¶80). The NSACF then determines whether the requested network slice is available and returns the result to the AMF (Velev ¶¶81-83).
Accordingly, Velev teaches a request sent from the AMF to a separate NSACF for determining network slice availability based on the number of UEs registered with the network slice and teaches that the request includes the UE identity and at least one S-NSSAI.
Park further teaches that the Core Control Network Function (CCNF) corresponds to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) and participates in signaling and communications with other network functions during registration procedures (Park ¶443). Although Velev does not expressly disclose including the identity of the AMF within the request, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the identity of the originating AMF so that the NSACF can identify the originating network function, associate the request with the appropriate AMF context, and properly process and return any response. Including the identity of the originating network function in service-based interface communications between 5G core network functions represents the predictable use of known protocol information to facilitate routing and context management, yielding no more than the expected result.
Accordingly, the combined teachings of Park and Velev disclose or render obvious the claimed request sent from the AMF to a separate NSACF, including the recited information elements. Therefore, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. 2019/0357129 A1) in view of Velev (US 2024/0147235).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses "A method performed by an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF)," as Park teaches that the Core Control Network Function (CCNF) performs the functions of an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) in handling UE registration, mobility management, and communications with other network functions (Park ¶443).
Park further discloses "receiving a registration request from a User Equipment (UE), wherein the registration request includes a requested network slice," as Park teaches receiving a Registration Request including Requested NSSAI/S-NSSAI during the registration procedure (Park ¶¶649-652).
Park does not expressly disclose "sending, by the AMF, a request for updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice to a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF), wherein the NSACF is a separate network function from the AMF, wherein the request for updating the number of UEs registered with a network slice includes an identity of the AMF, an identity of the UE, and at least one Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI)."
Velev teaches that the Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) controls the number of UEs registered per network slice so that the maximum number of UEs per network slice is not exceeded (Velev ¶76). Velev further teaches that an AMF triggers a number-of-UEs-per-network-slice availability check procedure with the NSACF during registration (Velev ¶77). Velev further teaches that the AMF sends an Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheck_Request message to the NSACF for network slice admission control (Velev ¶79), wherein the request includes a UE identifier (ID) and one or more S-NSSAIs associated with the requested network slice (Velev ¶80). Velev further teaches receiving a response from the NSACF indicating whether the requested network slice is available (Velev ¶¶81-83).
Velev does not expressly disclose that the request includes the identity of the originating AMF. However, Park teaches that the CCNF corresponds to an AMF and participates in signaling and communications with other network functions (Park ¶443). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the identity of the originating AMF in Velev's request so that the NSACF can identify the originating network function, associate the request with the appropriate AMF context, and properly process and return any response. Including the identity of the originating network function in service-based interface communications between 5G core network functions represents the predictable use of known protocol information to facilitate routing and context management, yielding no more than the expected result.
Park and Velev collectively disclose "receiving, from the NSACF, a response indicating whether the requested network slice is available based on the updated number of UEs registered with the network slice," as Velev teaches that the NSACF returns the result of the admission control determination to the AMF indicating whether the requested network slice is available (Velev ¶¶81-83).
Park further discloses "transmitting a registration accept message to the UE based on the response," as Park teaches transmitting a Registration Accept message to the UE after completion of the registration procedure and network slice processing (Park ¶652).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Velev discloses that the AMF identity includes a network function (NF)-instance identifier (para. 669).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Velev discloses sending to the UE a registration accept to connect to at least one network slice corresponding to the at least one S-NSSAI served by the AMF (Fig. 16, step 6; para. 655).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Velev discloses inter-AMF mobility where the source AMF sends an admission control request including AMF ID and S-NSSAI to the NSACF to decrease UE counts (para. 664).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Velev discloses deleting UE counts for an S-NSSAI based on deregistration or inactivity (para. 668).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Velev discloses receiving deregistration/cancel-location from UDM and sending an admission control request including AMF ID, UE ID, and S-NSSAI to the NSACF to decrement UE counts (paras. 664–668).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses "A method of a network slice admission control function (NSACF) in a communication system," as Park teaches network functions participating in network slice registration and admission control procedures, including communications between the AMF (CCNF) and other network functions during registration (Park ¶443).
Park does not expressly disclose "receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) which is a separate network function from the NSACF, a request for updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice based on the AMF receiving a registration request from a user equipment (UE), wherein the request for updating the number of UEs registered with a network slice includes an identity of the AMF, an identity of the UE, and at least one single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI); and updating a number of UEs registered for the at least one S-NSSAI based on receiving the request for updating the number of UEs registered with a network slice."
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, Velev teaches that the NSACF controls the number of UEs registered per network slice so that the maximum number of UEs per network slice is not exceeded (Velev ¶76). Velev further teaches that an AMF triggers a number-of-UEs-per-network-slice availability check procedure with the NSACF (Velev ¶77). During the registration procedure, the AMF sends an Nnsacf_NumberOfUEsPerSliceAvailabilityCheck_Request message to the NSACF (Velev ¶79), wherein the request includes a UE identifier (ID) and one or more S-NSSAIs (Velev ¶80). Velev further teaches that the NSACF processes the request to determine network slice availability based on the number of registered UEs and returns the result to the AMF (Velev ¶¶81-83).
Velev does not expressly disclose that the request includes the identity of the originating AMF. However, Park teaches that the CCNF corresponds to an AMF and participates in signaling with other network functions (Park ¶443). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the identity of the originating AMF in Velev's request so that the NSACF can identify the originating network function, associate the request with the appropriate AMF context, and properly process and return any response. Including the identity of the originating network function in service-based interface communications between 5G core network functions represents the predictable use of known protocol information to facilitate routing and context management, yielding no more than the expected result.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Park in view of Velev to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Velev discloses that the AMF identity includes an NF-instance identifier (para. 669).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Velev discloses updating UE counts in UE context information mapped to AMF ID, UE ID, and S-NSSAI (paras. 652, 668).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Velev discloses checking UE context information and creating new entries when S-NSSAI and UE ID are not present (paras. 652–653, 668).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses processing UE registration information, including NSSAI and UE-related context information, and determining whether a requested network slice can be supported based on subscription and network capability (¶¶ [0652]–[0653]).
Park discloses further comprising:if the at least one S-NSSAI and the identity of the UE are present in the UE context information, checking if an information element mapped with the at least one S-NSSAI present in the UE context information is same as an information element received from the AMF;increasing or decrease the number of UEs registered for the at least one S-NSSAI in the UE context information … if … same …; andcreating the new entry … if … not same …
Park does not specifically disclose comparing stored UE context information with received information from an AMF to determine whether to update or create entries, nor increasing or decreasing a number of UEs based on such comparison.
Velev discloses that the NSACF maintains a list of UEs registered for each network slice and processes requests from the AMF to update this information (¶¶ [0087]–[0088]). Velev further discloses that, when an update request is received, the NSACF checks whether the UE ID is already present in the list of UEs associated with the network slice and, if not present, adds the UE ID to the list and increases the number of UEs, and if present (or in a removal case), updates the list and decreases the number of UEs accordingly (¶ [0088]).
Thus, Velev discloses comparing stored information with received information and conditionally updating or creating entries, as well as increasing or decreasing the number of UEs based on the comparison.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the update and comparison mechanisms of Velev into the admission control framework of Park in order to maintain accurate UE context information and enable efficient management of network slice utilization, as both references relate to network slice admission control and context management in communication systems.
Regarding claim 12, Park in view of Velev discloses receiving an admission control request from AMF including AMF ID, UE ID, and S-NSSAI upon UE registration in another AMF, and decrementing UE counts accordingly (paras. 664–668).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Velev for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Park in view of Velev discloses that the AMF ID is an NF-instance identifier (para. 669).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses that the AMF processor, upon deregistration from UDM, sends an admission control request including AMF ID, UE ID, and S-NSSAI to NSACF to decrement counts (paras. 664–668).
Claim 16 recites substantially identical subject matter as claim 7, and is thus similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses that the AMF identity is an NF-instance identifier (para. 669).
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses checking UE context information and creating entries when UE ID/S-NSSAI not present (paras. 652–653, 668).
Regarding claim 19, Park discloses updating UE counts or creating new entries based on admission control requests (paras. 664–668).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses receiving admission control requests from AMF including AMF ID, UE ID, and S-NSSAI after UE registers with another AMF, and decrementing UE counts in context accordingly (paras. 664–668).
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights