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 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 30 December 2025, claims 11, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Park fails to disclose a “network slice admission control function (NSACF)” and does not disclose “sending a request … to an NSACF.” (Rem. 9-13)
This argument is not persuasive.
The claim recites a functional limitation (“network slice admission control function”) and does not require that the function be implemented as a separate or distinct network entity. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such a function may be implemented within a single network node or distributed across multiple components.
Park discloses that the CCNF (corresponding to an AMF) processes NSSAI information, checks whether the requested slice is valid for the UE, retrieves subscription data, and determines whether the network can support the requested slice (¶¶ [0652]–[0653]). These operations constitute network slice admission control.
Accordingly, the CCNF of Park performs the function of a network slice admission control function.
To the extent that Park does not explicitly disclose sending a request to such a function, it would have been obvious to structure the interactions between network functions as a request to an admission control function, as a predictable implementation of inter-function communication in a service-based architecture.
Applicant further argues that Park does not disclose updating a number of UEs. (Rem. 9-13)
This argument has been considered. As discussed above, while Park does not explicitly disclose a numeric UE count, it would have been obvious to implement admission control using quantitative metrics such as the number of UEs associated with a network slice in order to manage capacity and prevent overload, which is a well-known and predictable technique in communication systems.
Applicant’s arguments relying on a specific architectural separation of the NSACF are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. 2019/0357129 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method of an access and mobility management function (AMF) in a communication system, the method comprising:
Park discloses a method performed by a Common Control Network Function (CCNF1), which corresponds to an AMF (Park ¶ [0443]).
receiving a registration request from a user equipment (UE);
Park discloses that the CCNF1 receives an attach/registration request message from the UE via the access network (see FIG. 16; ¶¶ [0649], [0652]).
sending a request for updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice to a network slice admission control function (NSACF) based on receiving the registration request;
Park discloses that, upon receiving the registration request, the CCNF1 determines whether the requested NSSAI is valid for the UE and whether a CCNF capable of supporting the requested slice exists, based on subscription information and network capability (¶¶ [0652]–[0653]).
Park further discloses that the CCNF interacts with other network functions to obtain information necessary for admission decisions (¶ [0652]).
However, Park does not explicitly disclose (i) sending a request to a network slice admission control function, or (ii) updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the admission control performed by Park using inter-function communication structured as a request to an admission control function, as a predictable implementation of communication between functional components in a service-based architecture.
It would have been further obvious to implement such admission control using quantitative information regarding resource usage of a network slice, including the number of UEs associated with the slice, because determining whether a slice can support additional UEs requires evaluation of current utilization. Using a count of UEs as a metric for admission control is a well-known and predictable design choice in communication systems to efficiently manage limited network resources.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a numeric UE count in the admission process of Park to provide a precise, real-time threshold for network congestion, thereby preventing the network slice from being overloaded beyond its supported capability.
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).
Park discloses that the registration request includes NSSAI (¶ [0649]).
Park discloses that the CCNF identifies the UE and retrieves subscription information corresponding to the UE (¶¶ [0650], [0652]).
Park discloses that the CCNF corresponds to an AMF and participates in signaling associated with the UE registration procedure, thereby providing identification of the serving network function in communications with other network functions (¶ [0443]).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses that the AMF identity includes a network function (NF)-instance identifier (para. 669).
Regarding claim 3, Park 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 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 discloses deleting UE counts for an S-NSSAI based on deregistration or inactivity (para. 668).
Regarding claim 6, Park 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).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Park for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses that the AMF identity includes an NF-instance identifier (para. 669).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses updating UE counts in UE context information mapped to AMF ID, UE ID, and S-NSSAI (paras. 652, 668).
Regarding claim 10, Park 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 increasing or decreasing UE counts for an S-NSSAI in UE context information based on requests, and creating entries when necessary (paras. 664–668).
Regarding claim 12, Park 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).
Regarding claim 14, Park 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).
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses an apparatus including a processing entity (e.g., CCNF1 corresponding to a network function such as an AMF) having processing circuitry configured to receive UE registration requests, process NSSAI information, and determine whether a requested network slice can be supported based on subscription and network capability (¶ [0443]; ¶¶ [0652]–[0653]).
Park discloses an apparatus for a network slice admission control function (NSACF) in a communication system, the apparatus comprising:a memory; andat least one processor coupled to the memory,
Park discloses a network function (CCNF1) implemented using processing circuitry (processor) and associated storage (memory) to process UE requests and subscription information (¶ [0652]: “a processor of the CCNF1 decides…”) .
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:receive, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), 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),
Park discloses that the CCNF1 receives a registration/attach request from a UE via the network and processes it (¶ [0652]; FIG. 16) .
Park further discloses that the CCNF interacts with other network functions (e.g., SDM/UDM) to obtain information necessary for admission decisions (¶ [0652]) .
However, Park does not explicitly disclose receiving, from an AMF, a request for updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice.
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),
Park discloses that:
the UE provides NSSAI (including S-NSSAI) in the registration/attach request (¶ [0443]) ;
the CCNF identifies the UE and retrieves subscription information corresponding to that UE (¶ [0652]) ;
the CCNF corresponds to an AMF participating in the registration procedure (¶ [0443]).
However, Park does not explicitly disclose that such information is included in a request sent from an AMF to an admission control function.
andupdate 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.
Park discloses determining whether a network slice can support a UE based on subscription and network capability (¶ [0653]) .
However, Park does not explicitly disclose updating a number of UEs registered for the S-NSSAI.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to implement the admission control processing described in Park using a functional entity responsible for admission decisions (i.e., an admission control function), and to structure interactions between network functions such that a request from an AMF triggers processing by such an admission control function, as a predictable implementation of inter-function communication in a service-based architecture.
It would have been further obvious to implement such admission control using quantitative tracking of network slice usage, including maintaining and updating a number of UEs associated with each slice, because determining whether a slice can support additional UEs requires evaluation of current utilization. Using a count of UEs as a metric for admission control is a well-known and predictable design choice in communication systems to manage capacity and prevent overload.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to update the number of UEs associated with a network slice upon receiving information from an AMF regarding UE registration, in order to maintain accurate, real-time information about slice utilization and ensure that the network slice does not exceed its supported capability.
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).
Claim 11, and in the alternative, claim 16 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 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 16, Park discloses a network function (e.g., CCNF1 corresponding to an AMF) implemented with processing circuitry and memory, configured to process UE registration requests and perform network slice admission determinations based on NSSAI and subscription information (¶¶ [0443], [0652]–[0653]).
Park discloses an apparatus for a network slice admission control function (NSACF) in a communication system, the apparatus comprising:a memory; andat least one processor coupled to the memory,
Park discloses a network function (CCNF1) implemented using a processor and associated storage for processing UE registration and subscription information (¶ [0652]).
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:receive, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), 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),
Park discloses receiving and processing a UE registration request and determining whether a requested network slice can be supported (¶¶ [0652]–[0653]).
Park does not specifically disclose receiving, from an AMF, a request for updating a number of UEs registered with a network slice. Velev discloses that “the AMF sends a … NumberOfUEsPerSliceUpdate_Request message to the NSACF” (¶ [0087]), and that this request is sent in response to UE registration-related procedures (¶¶ [0083], [0087]).
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),
Park discloses UE identity and subscription information associated with the UE (¶ [0652]) and NSSAI (including S-NSSAI) associated with the UE registration (¶ [0443]). Park does not disclose inclusion of these elements in a request sent from an AMF to an NSACF. Velev discloses that the request includes UE ID and S-NSSAIs (¶ [0087]). Velev does not explicitly disclose inclusion of an AMF identity in the request. However, it would have been obvious to include the identity of the AMF in such a request to ensure proper identification and routing between network functions in a service-based architecture.
andupdate 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.
Park discloses determining whether a network slice can support a UE based on capability and subscription (¶ [0653]). Park does not disclose updating a number of UEs registered for a slice. Velev discloses that “the NSACF updates … the number of UEs registered for the S-NSSAI” (¶ [0088]), including increasing or decreasing the number of UEs based on the request from the AMF (¶ [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the admission control framework of Park to incorporate the NSACF-based UE counting and update mechanism of Velev in order to provide accurate tracking of the number of UEs associated with each network slice, enable admission control decisions based on current slice utilization, and prevent overload of network slices. Both Park and Velev are directed to 5G network slice admission control, and Velev provides a known technique for managing slice capacity using UE count updates. Applying this technique to Park represents the use of a known method to improve a similar system, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). In the prior Office action, claims 1, 7, 13, and 16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Park. In response, Applicant presented arguments asserting that Park does not explicitly disclose certain limitations.
In this Office action, the rejection of claims 1, 7, 13, and 16 has been modified to be under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Park. This modification is based on the same reference (Park) and the same teachings previously relied upon. The change in statutory basis from § 102 to § 103 is made in response to Applicant’s arguments and reflects a refinement of the legal conclusion drawn from the same factual record, rather than reliance on new prior art or new evidence.
Accordingly, because the rejection relies on the same reference and the same teachings as previously applied, and is responsive to Applicant’s arguments, this Office action is properly made final.
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