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
This communication is considered fully responsive to the Arguments/Remarks filed on 6/16/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11, 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: claims 4, 13 and 20 would be allowable because the closest prior arts listed above either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed invention of “wherein the indication is transparently transmitted to the wireless communication terminal via an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) in a URSP container”, in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) above as defined by applicant
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-12, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US 2024/0373481, hereinafter “Ianev”) in view of Cui et al. (US 2020/0059856, hereinafter “Cui”).
For claim 1, Ianev discloses A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a policy control node from one or more network slice access control nodes, a notification indicating that a first network slice is overloaded (The NSACF sends the notification to the AMF when the number of the PDU Sessions established on supported network slice(s) subject to NSAC reaches or exceeds a threshold value. The threshold value is, for example, the maximum number of the PDU Sessions allowed to be established on the network slice(s) or a certain percentage of the maximum number. When the AMF receives, from the NSACF, such notification for network slice(s), the AMF stores the network slice(s) and tags them as overflown (or overloaded or not available for access or any other notation to indicate that the network slice reaches or exceeds its maximum number of established PDU Sessions) until another notification from the NSACF that indicates the network slice(s) become available again (or not overflown or not overloaded) or until expiry of the slice_overflow_validity time, if the slice_overflow_validity time is provided by the NSACF in the slice_overflow_validity parameter. When a UE triggers Registration Request with the AMF, the AMF checks if any network slice( s) in the Requested NSSAI of the Registration Request message by the UE are tagged as overflown in the AMF. If one or more network slices from the Requested NSSAI(s) are found by the AMF to be overflown, the AMF forwards these overflown network slices to the PCF; see Ianev par. 0384); and
transmitting, by the policy control node to a wireless communication terminal, an updated User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP) (The PCF uses the UE Configuration Update Procedure in NPL 3, clause 4.2.4.3 to deliver to the UE the updated URSP rules including the updated NSSP rules; see Ianev par. 0411).
Ianev suggests that the PCF updates the URSP rules for the UE so that the overflown S-NSSAI(s) is with lowest possible priority for selecting by the applications in the UE. The updated URSP rules are provided to the UE via the UE Configuration Update procedure; see Ianev par. 0384. Ianev also suggests that if the NSSP rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order (i.e. the NSSP rules indicate that S-NSSAI-1 has highest priority for the Application) and a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-1 is overflown, then the PCF may modify or update the NSSP rules so as to include S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, S-NSSAI-1 in this order); see Ianev par. 0409-0410.
However Ianev does not explicitly disclose indicate the wireless communication terminal to re-match an application in association with the network slice to a second network slice according to the notification. Cui discloses indicate the wireless communication terminal to re-match an application in association with the network slice to a second network slice according to the notification (a dynamic slice selection system, e.g., a network data analytics function (NWDAF), can comprise a data collection component and an analytics component. The data collection component can determine a network slice ( e.g., associated with a virtual network function) that is being used by a wireless device. Further, the data collection component can determine a service that is being provided, via the network slice, to the wireless device; see Cui par. 0015, 0020, 0026-0027; FIG. 6 illustrates another process (600) performed by a system, e.g., dynamic slice selection system (110), in accordance with various example embodiments. At 610, the system can determine whether a characteristic of a communication service being provided to a wireless device via a first virtual network function satisfies a defined condition corresponding to an application of the wireless device. At 620, in response to the characteristic being determined not to satisfy the defined condition, the system can reassign a second virtual network function to the wireless device to facilitate providing the service to the wireless device via the second virtual network function; see Cui par. 0051). It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use Cui's arrangement in Ianev's invention to improve subscriber experience(s) and facilitate optimal use of wireless network resources by dynamically selecting, e.g., based on a past usage, usage pattern, etc. of the UE, a slice for the UE or an application of the UE (see Cui par. 0014).
For claim 2, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising:
adjusting, by the policy control node to the wireless communication terminal, an order of Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), in a Network Slice Selection Policy (NSSP) (The UE may use the URSP rules in the UE Policy in order to derive one or more compatible S-NSSAI(s) to the network slice on which the UE requires a service (i.e. requested S-NSSAI(s)). For example, if the NSSP (Network Slice Selection Policy) mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order, the UE would use the S-NSSAI-1 as the network slice on which it requests service (i.e. the requested S-NSSAI(s)) and the UE would use S-NSSAI-2 and S-NSSAI-3 as compatible network slices (or compatible S-NSSAI(s)); see Ianev par. 0291; If the PCF receives overflown network slices (e.g. overflown S-NSSAI(s)) within the Npcf_UEPolicyControl_Create request message, the PCF updates the URSP ( or the URSP rules) for the UE that is being registered for the overflown network slice; see Ianev par. 0409);
wherein the wireless communication method further comprises:
decreasing, by the policy control node to the wireless communication terminal, a priority of S-NSSAI corresponding to the overloaded network slice;
removing, by the policy control node to the wireless communication terminal, S-NSSAI corresponding to the overloaded network slice from the NSSP; or
replacing, by the policy control node to the wireless communication terminal, S-NSSAI corresponding to the overloaded network slice in the NSSP with a new S-NSSAI (The PCF decreases priority for the overflown network slice(s) by making the overflown network slice the least desirable network slice in the NSSP (Network Slice Selection Policy) rules which defines which Application what network slice to use in priority order list of network slices. If the PCF received the slice_overflow_validity parameter for the overflown network slice, the PCF restores back the networks slice priority for the overflown network slice in the URSP rules at expiry of the slice_overflow_ validity time indicated by the slice_overflow validity parameter. For example, if the NSSP rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order (i.e. the NSSP rules indicate that S-NSSAI-1 has highest priority for the Application) and a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-1 is overflown, then the PCF may modify or update the NSSP rules so as to include S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, S-NSSAI-1 in this order; see Ianev par. 0409-0410).
For claim 3, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the policy control node to the wireless communication terminal, an indication for re-evaluating the updated URSP (the PCF updates the URSP rules for the UE so that the overflown S-NSSAI(s) is with lowest possible priority for selecting by the applications in the UE. The updated URSP rules are provided to the UE via the UE Configuration Update procedure. FIG. 4 shows detailed processes; see Ianev par. 0384).
For claims 5 and 14, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 3, wherein the indication is non-transparently transmitted to the wireless communication terminal via an AMF (Configuration Update Command message: This message is sent from the AMF 70 to the UE 3. In addition to the parameters that are disclosed by Aspects in this disclosure, following parameters may be populated together in the Configuration Update Command message. Configuration update indication, 5G-GUTI, TAI list, Allowed NSSAI, Service area list, Full name for network, Short name for network, Local time zone, Universal time and local time zone, Network daylight saving time, LADN information, MICO indication, Network slicing indication, Configured NSSAI, Rejected NSSAI, Operator-defined access category definitions, SMS indication, T3447 value, CAG information list, UE radio capability ID, UE radio capability ID deletion indication, SGS registration result, Truncated 5G-S-TMSI configuration, Additional configuration indication and Extended rejected NSSAI; see Ianev par. 0462-0463).
For claims 6, 15 and 18 Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the one or more offload rules comprise S-NSSAI corresponding to a target network slice to indicate the wireless communication terminal to offload the application to the target network slice (The AMF stores the slice admission status and the slice_overflow validity per supported S-NSSAI and updates them at each notification from the NSACF or at expiry of the slice_overflow validity time. The examples for storing or maintaining the list are in a same manner as the step 4 in Aspect 1. 5) When a UE requires service, the UE sends, to the AMF, a UL NAS TRANSPORT message encapsulating the PDU Session Establishment Request message. The UE includes, in the PDU Session Establishment Request message, as parameters a PDU Session Id, DNN and the requested S-NSSAI(s) on which the PDU Session is to be established (or the S-NSSAI(s) on which the service is to be accessed). The requested S-NSSAI(s) is one of the S-NSSAI (s) that the service triggering Application in the UE is mapped to by the NSSP (Network Slice Selection Policy) within the URSP (UE Route Selection Policy) in the UE Policy; see Ianev par. 0318-0320).
For claims 7 and 19, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 6, wherein the target network slice is determined according to at least one of:
configurations of the application and the target network slice;
mapping information between the application and the target network slice; or
a load of the target network slice (When the AMF receives the UL NAS TRANSPORT message encapsulating the PDU Session Establishment Request message from the UE, the AMF first checks whether the received S-NSSAI(s) on which a service is requested (e.g. the requested S-NSSAI(s)) is overflown (i.e. the AMF checks whether the received S-NSSAI(s) is tagged as overflown or not in the AMF). The received S-NSSAI(s) may be called as a requested S-NSSAI(s). If the received S-NSSAI(s) is found in the list of the overflown network slices (i.e. if the AMF determines that the received S-NSSAI (s) is tagged as the overflown network slice), the AMF may find S-NSSAI(s) which is compatible with the received S-NSSAI(s), called compatible S-NSSAI(s) (or any other notation for S-NSSAI(s) which can provide the same service as the received S-NSSAI(s)). The AMF may retrieve the UE's URSP from the PCF in order to decide the compatible S-NSSAI(s). For example, if the NSSP (Network Slice Selection Policy) mapping rules within the UE' s URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order and the UE requested a service on the S-NSSAI-1, then S-NSSAI-2 and S-NSSAI-3 can be considered as compatible network slices. For example, in this case, the AMF may consider the S-NSSAI-2 and the S-NSSAI-3 as compatible network slices (or compatible S-NSSAI(s); see Ianev par. 0321).
For claim 8, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 6, wherein S-NSSAI corresponding to the target network slice is in allowed Network Slice Selection Assistance Information, NSSAI (If the AMF manages to find another S-NSSAI(s) compatible to the requested S-NSSAI(s) (i.e. the AMF finds the compatible S-NSSAI(s)), the AMF provides that compatible S-NSSAI(s) to the UE via DL_NAS message. The AMF may choose the compatible S-NSSAI(s) from S-NSSAI(s) in the allowed NSSAI for the UE; see Ianev par. 0323).
For claim 9, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the notification is received in response to reaching a threshold in association with the network slice (The slice_overflow_threshold parameter may be any other notation for a parameter defining the threshold value for triggering the notification from the NSACF. The slice_overflow_threshold parameter may be information defining the threshold value for triggering the notification from the NSACF; see Ianev par. 0389).
For claim 10, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the policy control node to the one or more network slice access control nodes, a subscription request for the notification; wherein the subscription request comprises a threshold corresponding to a number of user equipments in association with the network slice (The Nnsacf_NSAC_Notification unsubscribe message may include the same parameters as the Nnsacf_NSAC_Notification subscribe message, i.e., supported S-NSSAI(s), slice_admission_control parameter and slice_overflow threshold parameter. 2) The NSACF monitors the number of the PDU Sessions established on each one of the supported network slices which the AMF requests notification for or the number of registered UEs which the AMF requested notification for. When the number of registered UEs or the number of the PDU Sessions on one or more of the monitored network slices reaches or exceeds the threshold value based on the slice_overflow_threshold parameter for that network slice (s), the NSACF triggers notification to the AMF. The threshold value is, for example, the maximum number of UEs allowed to register on the network slice or the maximum number of the PDU Sessions allowed to be established on the network slice or a certain percentage of the maximum number. The notification may be an Nnsacf_NSAC_Notification. Similarly, when the number of registered UEs or the number of the PDU Sessions on one or more of the monitored network slices reaches or exceeds the threshold value once but starts decreasing and becomes less than the threshold value, the NSACF triggers notification to the AMF; see Ianev par. 0338-0340, 0413).
For claim 11, Ianev discloses A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless communication terminal from a policy control node, an updated User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP), or one or more offload rules (if the NSSP rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order (i.e. the NSSP rules indicate that S-NSSAI-1 has highest priority for the Application) and a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-1 is overflown, then the PCF may modify or update the NSSP rules so as to include S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, S-NSSAI-1 in this order. The PCF uses the UE Configuration Update Procedure in NPL 3, clause 4.2.4.3 to deliver to the UE the updated URSP rules including the updated NSSP rules; see Ianev par. 0410-0411); and
re-matching, by the wireless communication terminal, an application from an overloaded network slice to another network slice according to the updated URSP or the one or more offload rules (the PCF updates the URSP rules for the UE so that the overflown S-NSSAI(s) is with lowest possible priority for selecting by the applications in the UE. The updated URSP rules are provided to the UE via the UE Configuration Update procedure. FIG. 4 shows detailed processes; see Ianev par. 0384; The PCF decreases priority for the overflown network slice(s) by making the overflown network slice the least desirable network slice in the NSSP (Network Slice Selection Policy) rules which defines which Application what network slice to use in priority order list of network slices…if the NSSP rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order (i.e. the NSSP rules indicate that S-NSSAI-1 has highest priority for the Application) and a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-1 is overflown, then the PCF may modify or update the NSSP rules so as to include S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, S-NSSAI-1 in this order); see Ianev par. 0409-0410).
For claim 12, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 11, further comprising:
receiving, by the wireless communication terminal from the policy control node, an indication for re-evaluating the updated URSP (the PCF updates the URSP rules for the UE so that the overflown S-NSSAI(s) is with lowest possible priority for selecting by the applications in the UE. The updated URSP rules are provided to the UE via the UE Configuration Update procedure. FIG. 4 shows detailed processes; see Ianev par. 0384).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev and Cui, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 2021/0160186, hereinafter “Xu”).
For claim 16, Ianev discloses The wireless communication method of claim 11, wherein the application is re- matched from the overloaded network slice to the another network slice (the PCF updates the URSP rules for the UE so that the overflown S-NSSAI(s) is with lowest possible priority for selecting by the applications in the UE. The updated URSP rules are provided to the UE via the UE Configuration Update procedure. FIG. 4 shows detailed processes; see Ianev par. 0384; The PCF decreases priority for the overflown network slice(s) by making the overflown network slice the least desirable network slice in the NSSP (Network Slice Selection Policy) rules which defines which Application what network slice to use in priority order list of network slices…if the NSSP rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3 in this order (i.e. the NSSP rules indicate that S-NSSAI-1 has highest priority for the Application) and a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-1 is overflown, then the PCF may modify or update the NSSP rules so as to include S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, S-NSSAI-1 in this order); see Ianev par. 0409-0410).
The combination of Ianev and Cui does not explicitly disclose when the wireless communication terminal is in an idle mode or when there is no data transfer for the application. Xu discloses when the wireless communication terminal is in an idle mode or when there is no data transfer for the application (In an implementation mode, the updating unit 1104 is configured to, under the condition that the UE moves from the first mobile communication system to the second mobile communication system, when the UE enters an idle state or a first timer expires, update the association between the data and the first connection; see Xu par. 0237). It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use Xu's arrangement in Ianev's invention to enable the computer to execute the policy mapping method (see Xu par. 0014).
For claim 17, Ianev discloses A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a session management node from a network slice access control node, failed Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (If the one of the compatible S-NSSAI(s) is not overflown (e.g. if the AMF determines that the one of the compatible S-NSSAI(s) is not overflown or the AMF retrieves the one of the compatible S-NSSAI(s) based on the URSP rules), the AMF sends an Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request towards an SMF with the one of the compatible S-NSSAI(s) instead of the received S-NSSAI(s) from the UE. In this case the SMF is selected based on the one of the compatible S-NSSAI(s) and other parameters including the DNN. For example, in case of S-NSSAI-1 on which the service is requested, and S-NSSAI-2 as the compatible S-NSSAI, and in a case where a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-1 is overflown and a network slice indicated by the S-NSSAI-2 is not overflown, the AMF determines that the S-NSSAI-2 is not overflown and sends the Nsmf_PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request towards the SMF, by using the S-NSSAI-2 instead of the S-NSSAI-1; see Ianev par. 0295); and
Ianev does not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the session management node to a wireless communication terminal, one or more offload rules to indicate the wireless communication terminal to re-match an application in association with the failed S-NSSAI to a target network slice corresponding to another S-NSSAI. Xu discloses transmitting, by the session management node to a wireless communication terminal, one or more offload rules to indicate the wireless communication terminal to re-match an application in association with the failed S-NSSAI to a target network slice corresponding to another S-NSSAI (the rule available for policy mapping in the first policy may be, for example, whether policy mapping may be performed on the URSP rule in the URSP or not or, for example, whether policy mapping may be performed on a WLANSP rule in the ANDSP or not. In the solution, whether policy mapping may be performed on the RSD under each rule in the first policy or not may be, for example, whether policy mapping may be performed on an RSD under the URSP rule in the URSP or not. In the solution, the parameter available for policy mapping in the RSD may be, for example, the S-NSSAI, the DNN, the PDU session type, the non-seamless offload indication, the access type preference, the valid time window and the valid region. The non-seamless offload indication, the access type preference, the valid time window and the valid region may be mapped in a direct copying manner; see Xu par. 0137-0138; Referring to FIG. 10, the UE, when PDU session establishment is triggered, may report the second indication information in the registration request (the second indication information is optionally reported) such that the SMF can transmit the first indication information based on the second indication information reported by the UE. For example, the SMF, after receiving the second indication information, may determine whether to allow the UE to execute policy mapping or not. Similarly, in a PDU session modification flow, the SMF may also interact with the UE through a NAS message to transmit the first indication information to the UE; see Xu par. 0163). It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use Xu's arrangement in Ianev's invention to enable the computer to execute the policy mapping method (see Xu par. 0014).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Han et al. (US 2019/0174536).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 CHAE S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8236. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/CHAE S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights