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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the network slice of the network slice resource” on lines 1-2. There is no antecedence for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the network slice of the network slice resource” on lines 1-2. There is no antecedence for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 16, 19, 24, 27, 32, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Zhu et al (USPN 20230054991).
Regarding claim 24, Zhu discloses
an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity in a wireless communication, the AMF entity comprising: (AMF, FIG. 3 #30, comprising [0087]
a transceiver (communication unit, FIG. 3 #320, that transmits and receives signals [0087]
at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to: (processor, FIG. 3 #300, coupled to communication unit [0087]
identify that a protocol data unit (PDU) session is associated with a first network slice and that the first network slice is unavailable (AMF identifies current network slice (e.g. network slice S#1) associated with PDU is not supported by target RAN node RAN2 [0122-0125], FIGs. 6A, 6B
determine to replace the first network slice with a second network slice for the PDU session based on the identification (AMF determines to replace current network slice (e.g. network slice S#1) with network slice S#2 [0125]
transmit, to a session management function (SMF), a single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) of the second network slice based on the determination (transmits to SMF new S-NSSAI for network slice S#2 [0129, 0130], FIGs. 6A, 6B
Claim 16 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided by rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claim 33, Zhu discloses
a session management function (SMF) entity in a wireless communication, the SMF entity comprising: (SMF, FIG. 3 #30, comprising [0087]
a transceiver (communication unit, FIG. 3 #320, that transmits and receives signals [0087]
at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to: (processor, FIG. 3 #300, coupled to communication unit [0087]
receive, from an access and mobility function (AMF), a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) of a second network slice (receives from AMF new S-NSSAI for network slice S#2 due to network slice replacement [0129, 0130], FIGs. 6A, 6B
wherein a first network slice associated with a protocol data unit (PDU) session is unavailable and is to be replaced with the second network slice for the PDU session (AMF identifies current network slice (e.g. network slice S#1) associated with PDU is not supported by target RAN node RAN2 [0122-0125], FIGs. 6A, 6B
perform a PDU session modification procedure for the PDU session based on the S-NSSAI of the second network slice (SMF modifies/updates network slice information of PDU session [0143-0144], FIGs. 6A, 6B
Claim 32 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided by rejection of claim 33.
Regarding claims 19, 27, Zhu discloses “transmit, to a base station, a second message including second information related to remapping a network slice resource, wherein the second information related to remapping the network slice resource includes at least one of: information for indicating an single network slice selection assistance information(S-NSSAI corresponding to the available resource allocated to the PDU session or QoS flows in the PDU session, information for indicating a resource type corresponding to the available resource allocated to the PDU session or QoS flows in the PDU session” AMF sends a handover request to target RAN node RAN2 including N2 MM information which carries S-NSSAI/Qos info [0131, 0113-0116, 0177, 0178], FIGs. 6A, 6B
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.
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 17, 18, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Tamura et al (USPN 20220264295).
Regarding claims 17, 25, Zhu discloses “AMF receives from a third node, a first message including first information related to a usage of a network slice resource” AMF receives NG setup request messages to AMF which provide information on which network slice(s) are supported [0092, 0094]
“for restricting a location a location used for a network slice” location of RAN node RAN1 does not support network slice S#2 [0080, 0092, 0094]
Zhu does not expressly disclose “first information related to a usage of a network slice resource for the PDU session”
Tamura discloses “first information related to a usage of a network slice resource for the PDU session” AMF receives notification from AUSF related to S-NSSAI and PDU sessions [0097, 0141, 0142]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “first information related to a usage of a network slice resource for the PDU session” as taught by Tamura into Zhu’s system with the motivation to restrict use of certain network slice, e.g. Slice #2, and the network slice’s services/capability to a location of a certain cell to target certain groups of users.
Regarding claims 18, 26, Zhu discloses “the network slice of the network slice resource for the PDU session is not supported by the third node” RAN node RAN2 does not support current S-NSSAI of the PDU session [0125, 0170]
Zhu does not expressly disclose “and rejected by the third network”
Tamura discloses “and rejected by the third network” AMF places S-NSSAI #1 into the Rejected NSSAI [0083-0086]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “and rejected by the third network” as taught by Tamura into Zhu’s system with the motivation to restrict use of certain network slice, e.g. Slice #2, and the network slice’s services/capability to a location of a certain cell to target certain groups of users.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Xu et al (USPN 20200287800) FIG. 4
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 THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights