DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 03/22/2024. Claims 1-30 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/22/2024 and 08/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 14, 21, 29, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,028,128 to Salkintzis (hereafter Salkintzis).
Regarding claim 1, Salkintzis discloses a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (see Salkintzis, Fig 6, UE 405), comprising:
identifying that the UE is in communication with a first slice of a network via a first control entity at the UE (see Salkintzis, Col 20 lines 49-50: the UE 405 is attached to the first network slice instance 510);
determining that the UE is to further communicate with a second slice of the network (see Salkintzis, Col 20 lines 42-54: At some time, the UE 405 determines 640 that it needs to provide data services for Usage Class Z, which is not supported by the first network slice instance 510. For example, an IoT application 425 in the UE 405 may request data connectivity. The UE 405 may associate the IoT application 425 with the Usage Class Z. The UE 405 may further determine that its current attachment status does not support Usage Class Z. Here, the UE 405 is attached to the first network slice instance 510; however, the first network slice instance 510 does not support Usage Class Z; Accordingly, the UE 405 sends 645 an additional Attach Request message to the RAN 505 in order to attach for Usage Class Z; Col 21 lines 1-7: the RAN 505 selects 650 a network slice instance based on the required usage class in the Additional Attach Request message (e.g., Usage Class Z). Here, the RAN 505 selects the second network slice instance 515, which supports the Usage Class Z. Accordingly, the RAN 505 forwards 655 the Additional Attach Request message to the second network slice instance 515. In one embodiment, the RAN 505 forwards the Additional Attach Request message to a CP function in the second network slice instance 515);
transmitting a control message associated with the first control entity, the control message including a request pertaining to communications with the second slice (see Salkintzis, Col 20 lines 52-54: Accordingly, the UE 405 sends 645 an Additional Attach Request message to the RAN 505 in order to attach for Usage Class Z);
receiving, in response to the control message and at the first control entity, a reconfiguration message indicating a configuration for using the second slice (see Salkintzis, Col 21 lines 55-57: the second network slice instance 515 sends 675 an Additional Attach Response message to the UE 405 accepting the attach request; Col 22 lines 14-17: the Additional Attach Response message includes an identity for the CP function in the second network slice instance 515 which is assigned to serve the UE 405); and
communicating with the second slice of the network based at least in part on the configuration (see Salkintzis, Col 22 lines 29-33: The UE 405 sends 635 all signaling messages relating to Usage Class Z to the second network slice instance 515 (e.g., to the serving CP function in the second network slice instance 515)).
Regarding claim 13, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the UE is connected to a radio access network node, the radio access network node serving the first slice and the second slice (see Salkintzis, Fig 6 shows the RAN 505 is used for both slices; Col 17 lines 26-30: the UE 405 communicates with the first network slice instance 510 via the RAN 505. In response to the initial attachment to the first network slice instance 510, the first network slice instance 510 becomes the primary network slice 430; Col 17 lines 44-47: the UE 405 communicates with the second network slice instance 515 via the RAN 505. In response to the additional attachment, the second network slice instance 515 becomes a secondary network slice 435), wherein the UE transmits the control message to the radio access network node and receives the reconfiguration message from the radio access network node (see Salkintzis, Fig 6 shows the RAN 505 is used for both slices and the control message corresponds to the “additional Attach Req.” in step 645 and the “Reconfiguration message” corresponds to the “Additional Attach Response” in step 675).
Regarding claim 14, Salkintzis in view of Tsukamoto discloses the method of claim 13, wherein determining that the UE is to further communicate with the second slice further comprises: determining an arrival of application data associated with the second slice; and determining that the second slice is supported by the radio access network node (see Salkintzis, Col 20 lines 42-54: At some time, the UE 405 determines 640 that it needs to provide data services for Usage Class Z, which is not supported by the first network slice instance 510. For example, an IoT application 425 in the UE 405 may request data connectivity. The UE 405 may associate the IoT application 425 with the Usage Class Z. The UE 405 may further determine that its current attachment status does not support Usage Class Z. Here, the UE 405 is attached to the first network slice instance 510; however, the first network slice instance 510 does not support Usage Class Z; Accordingly, the UE 405 sends 645 an additional Attach Request message to the RAN 505 in order to attach for Usage Class Z; Col 21 lines 1-7: the RAN 505 selects 650 a network slice instance based on the required usage class in the Additional Attach Request message (e.g., Usage Class Z). Here, the RAN 505 selects the second network slice instance 515, which supports the Usage Class Z. Accordingly, the RAN 505 forwards 655 the Additional Attach Request message to the second network slice instance 515. In one embodiment, the RAN 505 forwards the Additional Attach Request message to a CP function in the second network slice instance 515).
Regarding claim 21, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as non-transitory computer-readable medium claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 8, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,028,128 to Salkintzis (hereafter Salkintzis) in view of US 2019/0239156 to Wang et al. (hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 2, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the UE is registered with the second core network based at least in part on determining that the UE is to further communicate with the second slice (see Salkintzis, Col 21 lines 1-7: the RAN 505 selects 650 a network slice instance based on the required usage class in the Additional Attach Request message (e.g., Usage Class Z). Here, the RAN 505 selects the second network slice instance 515, which supports the Usage Class Z. Accordingly, the RAN 505 forwards 655 the Additional Attach Request message to the second network slice instance 515. In one embodiment, the RAN 505 forwards the Additional Attach Request message to a CP function in the second network slice instance 51), but does not explicitly disclose identifying that the first slice is associated with a first core network and the second slice is supported by a second core network.
However, Wang discloses identifying that the first slice is associated with a first core network and the second slice is supported by a second core network (see Vikberg, Fig 8 depicts two “core network instances” which are being selected by a “network selection function”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Wang and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve the performance of the communication network (see Wang, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 3, Salkintzis in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the control message further comprises: transmitting a non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising information associated with the second slice based at least in part on determining that the UE is registered with the second core network.
However, Wang discloses wherein transmitting the control message further comprises: transmitting a non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising information associated with the second slice based at least in part on determining that the UE is registered with the second core network (see Wang, Fig 13, if NS1 and NS2 are considered to be core networks, then the “NAS New Service Request” depicted by Fig 13, 1312 is a NAS PDU which comprises “information associated with the second slice” because, according to ¶ 0139, it comprises “an indication of one or more preferred network slices (e.g., a UE preferred NSID) in the message”. Prior registration is then implied; ¶ 0128: the UE 1222 may provide a non-access stratum (NAS) connection request message to the selected RAN node 1224. The NAS connection request may function as a (“first”) service request, e.g., for requesting a connection to obtain a particular service from the network. The NAS connection request may include any of various types of information, potentially including but not limited to a UE ID, a Service Type, Application ID, etc. Optionally, the UE 1222 may include an indication of one or more preferred network slices (e.g., a UE preferred NSID) in the message).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Wang and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve the performance of the communication network (see Wang, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 4, Salkintzis in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 3, Salkintzis does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the control message further comprises: transmitting the non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising a service request to activate a protocol data unit session for the second slice.
However, Wang discloses wherein transmitting the control message further comprises: transmitting the non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising a service request to activate a protocol data unit session for the second slice (see Wang, Fig 13, steps 1312-1317 because the “NAS New Service Request” triggers in step 1317 a “NAS Connection Establishment”; ¶ 0136: mentions that connection establishment procedure may be network slice specific, and may involve different network functions (e.g., other NFs in NS1 1234). According to some embodiments, “the connection establishment procedure may include … session establishment).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Wang and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve the performance of the communication network (see Wang, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 6, Salkintzis in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 2, wherein transmitting the control message further comprises: transmitting a non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising a register request to register with the second core network based at least in part on determining that the UE is unregistered with the second core network (see Salkintzis, Fig 6, steps 645 and 655 showing the “Additional Attach Req.” is sent to the core and an attachment is at this level the same as a registration); and
establishing a protocol data unit session with the second core network (see Salkintzis, ¶ 0113: the UE 1122 may initiate a NGNAS Attach Request to establish connectivity with the NextGen Core over the RRC connectivity).
Regarding claim 8, Salkintzis in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 2, but fails to disclose further comprising: identifying a system information block comprising information associated with the second slice, wherein identifying that the second slice is supported by the second core network is based at least in part on the system information block.
However, Wang discloses identifying a system information block comprising information associated with the second slice, wherein identifying that the second slice is supported by the second core network is based at least in part on the system information block (see Wang, ¶ 0127: the RAN node 1224 may broadcast (e.g., in a master information block (MIB), system information block (SIB), etc.) one or more network slice IDs (NSIDs) core network slice IDs (CNSIDs) and/or radio access network slice IDs (RANSIDs) associated with network slices supported by the RAN node 1224. The UE 1222 may consider this information during cell selection, and at least in some instances, may select a serving cell (e.g., RAN node 1224) based at least in part on the network slices indicated to be available from that serving cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Wang and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve the performance of the communication network (see Wang, ¶ 0005).
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 8.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of Wang and further in view of US 2024/0334307 to Velev et al. (hereafter Velev).
Regarding claim 5, Salkintzis in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the control message further comprises: determining whether there is an existing protocol data unit session for the second slice; and transmitting the non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising a protocol data unit session establishment request to establish a protocol data unit session based at least in part on the determination of whether there is the existing protocol data unit session.
However, Velev discloses determining whether there is an existing protocol data unit session for the second slice (see Velev, ¶ 0100: if the UE 704 has already established a PDU session matching the TD of the URSP rule and the HL 702 request for a connection contains a “target slice” value different from the S-NSSAI stored in the RSD of the URSP rule, the UE 704 may decide to establish a new PDU session using the a “target slice” value from the HL 702 request for connection); and
transmitting the non-access stratum protocol data unit comprising a protocol data unit session establishment request to establish a protocol data unit session based at least in part on the determination of whether there is the existing protocol data unit session (see Velev, ¶ 0096: If the target slice and/or DNN preference by HL 702 is enabled, the UE 704 may apply at least one of the following: (1) either exchange the S-NSSAI stored in the RSD for the new PDU session establishment (e.g., but do not update the RSD of the existing URSP rule); ¶ 0101: the UE 704 may perform a NAS registration request procedure if the UE 704 is not registered to the S-NSSAI #2. If the UE 704 is registered to the S-NSSAI #2 (e.g., the S-NSSAI #2 may be part of the allowed NSSAI), the UE 704 may create and send a NAS SM PDU session establishment request message to the network, which may include at least one parameter (e.g., PDU session ID, S-NSSAI #2, DNN-A, etc.)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Velev and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve protocol data units configuration (see Velev, Abstract and ¶ 0001).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of Wang and further in view of US 2019/0380128 to Park et al. (hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, Salkintzis in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein determining whether the UE is registered with the second core network further comprises: identifying that the first core network is associated with a first public land mobile network and the second core network is associated with a second public land mobile network; and determining whether the UE is registered with the second public land mobile network.
However, Park discloses wherein determining whether the UE is registered with the second core network further comprises: identifying that the first core network is associated with a first public land mobile network and the second core network is associated with a second public land mobile network (see Park, ¶ 0336: if the selected gNB-CU is the first gNB-CU (e.g. the first PLMN), packets (e.g. PDCP packets, PDCP SDU, SDAP SDU, data, and/or the like) associated with the wireless device may be received/transmitted (forwarded) by a first core network (e.g. UPF, SGW, PGW, and/or the like) of the first PLMN (e.g. first service operator). In an example, if the selected gNB-CU is the second gNB-CU (e.g. the second PLMN), packets (e.g. PDCP packets, PDCP SDU, SDAP SDU, data, and/or the like) associated with the wireless device may be received/transmitted (forwarded) by a second core network (e.g. UPF, SGW, PGW, and/or the like) of the second PLMN (e.g. second service operator)); and
determining whether the UE is registered with the second public land mobile network (see Park, ¶ 0199: the terminal may display the name of the core network operator (e.g. PLMN) that the user has registered with; ¶ 0344: f the base station receives the first message via the one or more second serving cells (e.g. supporting the second PLMN and/or the second gNB-CU/the second gNB), the base station may select a core network entity (e.g. AMF, MME) of the second PLMN and/or transmit, to the selected core network entity of the second PLMN, an NG interface message (e.g. an initial UE message, and/or one or more UE context configuration related messages) to configure UE context with one or more core network entities (e.g. AMF, MME, UPF, SGW, PGW)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Park and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve network coverage and transmission efficiency of wireless network (see Park, ¶ 0182).
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of “Experimental Evaluation of RAN Slicing Architecture With Flexibly Located Functional Components of Base Station According to Diverse 5G Services” to TSUKAMOTO et al. (hereafter Tsukamoto), see IDS dated 08/13/2025.
Regarding claim 9, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that the UE is connected with a first distributed unit, the first distributed unit serving the first slice and a second distributed unit serving the second slice, wherein the UE transmits the control message to the first distributed unit and receives the reconfiguration message from the first distributed unit.
However, Tsukamoto discloses determining that the UE is connected with a first distributed unit, the first distributed unit serving the first slice and a second distributed unit serving the second slice, wherein the UE transmits the control message to the first distributed unit and receives the reconfiguration message from the first distributed unit (see Tsukamoto, section E: Isolation Among Slices discloses that each slice has a dedicated DU).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Tsukamoto and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to achieve efficient network operation (see Tsukamoto, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Salkintzis in view of Tsukamoto discloses the method of claim 9, wherein determining that the UE is to further communicate with the second slice further comprises: determining an arrival of application data associated with the second slice; and determining that the second slice is unsupported by the first distributed unit and is supported by the second distributed unit (see Salkintzis, Col 20 lines 42-44: the UE 405 determines 640 that it needs to provide data services for Usage Class Z, which is not supported by the first network slice instance 510).
Regarding claim 12, Salkintzis in view of Tsukamoto discloses the method of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: transmitting a reconfiguration complete message to the second distributed unit in response to receiving the reconfiguration message.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teaching of transmitting a reconfiguration complete message to the second distributed unit in response to receiving the reconfiguration message and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis since it is well-known in the art of communication to perform this teaching as evidenced by US 2019/0380128 to Park et al. (see ¶ 0318: the first message may comprise at least one of a wireless device identifier (e.g. TMSI, S-TMSI, IMSI, C-RNTI, RNTI, Resume ID, and/or the like) of the wireless device, ……. , a measurement report message, a proximity indication message, a relay node reconfiguration complete message).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this teaching to improve system performance.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of Tsukamoto and further in view of US 2023/0027233 to KUMAR et al. (hereafter Kumar).
Regarding claim 11, Salkintzis in view of Tsukamoto discloses the method of claim 10, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining that a radio link quality between the UE and the second distributed unit meets a threshold.
However, Kumar discloses determining that a radio link quality between the UE and the second distributed unit meets a threshold (see Kumar, ¶ 0115: the IAB parent node data may indicate a radio link quality between the IAB DU 515a and the IAB MT 515b and the IAB donor 510 may cause the IAB parent node 515 to transition from an active state to an inactive state based at least in part on the radio link quality (e.g., based at least in part on the radio link quality failing to satisfy a quality threshold)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Kumar and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to improve network performance (see Kumar, ¶ 0004).
Claim(s) 15, 17-19 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of US 2023/0062362 to SUN et al. (hereafter Sun).
Regarding claim 15, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising: but does not explicitly disclose transmitting a reconfiguration complete message to the radio access network node in response to receiving the reconfiguration message.
However, Sun discloses transmitting a reconfiguration complete message to the radio access network node in response to receiving the reconfiguration message (see Sun, ¶ 0179: The radio access network device sends a first reconfiguration message to the terminal device; ¶ 0180: The terminal device replies to the radio access network device with a first reconfiguration complete message).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Sun to ensure service continuity of the terminal device and load control on the first network slice is implemented (see Sun, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 17, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the reconfiguration message further comprises: receiving the reconfiguration message comprising an indication to suspend configurations with the first slice based at least in part on a configuration of the first slice.
However, Sun discloses wherein receiving the reconfiguration message further comprises: receiving the reconfiguration message comprising an indication to suspend configurations with the first slice based at least in part on a configuration of the first slice (see Sun, ¶ 0136: the first reconfiguration message is a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message. The first reconfiguration message includes configuration information of a second radio bearer. The second radio bearer is used by the terminal device to access the second network slice. The terminal device originally accesses the first network slice by using a first radio bearer. The radio access network device uses configuration information of the first radio bearer as the configuration information of the second radio bearer. The first reconfiguration message indicates the terminal device to access the second network slice based on the configuration information of the second radio bearer, so that after the terminal device accesses the second network slice, quality of service at an access stratum is similar to or the same as quality of service provided by the first network slice; ¶ 0230: the radio access network device sends the handover command to the terminal device. The handover command includes the configuration parameter required by the terminal device to access the target cell and the identifier of the second network slice, and the handover command indicates the terminal device to access the target cell and the second network slice. The handover command may be an RRC connection reconfiguration message). Thus, there is suspension or terminating of the first slice based on the handover from the first slice to the second slice based on the reconfiguration message.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Sun and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to ensure service continuity of the terminal device and load control on the first network slice is implemented (see Sun, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 18, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving a second reconfiguration message comprising an indication for the UE to release configurations associated with the second slice and to resume communications with the first slice.
However, Sun discloses receiving a second reconfiguration message comprising an indication for the UE to release configurations associated with the second slice and to resume communications with the first slice (see Sun, ¶ 0186: After determining that a PDU session in a first network slice needs to be resumed, the terminal device in the inactive state sends, to the radio access network device, the RRC connection resume request used to apply for resuming the PDU session in the first network slice. For example, the RRC connection resume request is an RRC resume request message or an RRC connection resume request message; ¶ 0198: when the terminal device requests to resume the PDU session in the first network slice, the radio access network device indicates, by using the RRC resume message, the terminal device to resume the connection and access the second network slice, and indicates the core network device to remap the PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the second network slice. Load control on the first network slice is implemented, and the RRC resume message indicates the terminal device to connect to the second network slice, so that continuity and quality of service of a service of the terminal device are ensured).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Sun and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to ensure service continuity of the terminal device and load control on the first network slice is implemented (see Sun, ¶ 0006).
Regarding claim 19, Salkintzis in view of Sun discloses the method of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: releasing access stratum context and non-access stratum context associated with the second slice; and resuming access stratum context and non-access stratum context associated with the first slice based at least in part on the second reconfiguration message.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the teaching of releasing access stratum context and non-access stratum context associated with the second slice; and resuming access stratum context and non-access stratum context associated with the first slice based at least in part on the second reconfiguration message since it is well-known in the art to release connection parameters of terminated node and resume connection parameters of activated node. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this teaching for efficient utilization of communication resources.
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 17. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 17.
Regarding claim 27, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 18. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 19. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 10.
Sun further discloses the first control entity is a radio resource control entity that carries the first non-access stratum and the second non-access stratum (see Sun, ¶ 0150).
Claim(s) 16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of US 2021/0037588 to ZHU et al. (hereafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 16, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein communicating with the second slice of the network further comprises: communicating with the second slice and the first slice concurrently based at least in part on a configuration of the first slice and the configuration of the second slice supporting concurrent usage.
However, Zhu discloses wherein communicating with the second slice of the network further comprises: communicating with the second slice and the first slice concurrently based at least in part on a configuration of the first slice and the configuration of the second slice supporting concurrent usage (see Zhu, ¶ 0137: where the 2.6 GHz carrier is configured for eMBB slices (e.g., the network slices 250) serving eMBB services and voice services and the 4.9 GHz carrier is configured for URLLC slices serving URLLC services. In some examples, the 4.9 GHz carrier may also be configured for eMBB slices so that the 4.9 GHz carrier can provide concurrent URLLC services and eMBB services).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Zhu and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis for efficient resource allocation in the communication system (see Zhu, ¶ 0004).
Regarding claim 25, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 16. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 16.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salkintzis in view of US 2024/0214894 to GURSU et al. (hereafter Gursu).
Regarding claim 20, Salkintzis discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first slice and the second slice are supported by a single Packet Data Convergence Protocol unit or by separate Packet Data Convergence Protocol units.
However, Gursu discloses wherein the first slice and the second slice are supported by a single Packet Data Convergence Protocol unit or by separate Packet Data Convergence Protocol units (see Gursu, ¶ 0065: in DAPS handover, the UE receives packets from source cell and target cell, and the packets are re-ordered by a common PDCP layer at the UE; ¶ 0066: in case of having a different PDCP architecture for the DAPS, starting the user plane communication with the target network node comprises releasing the first data session on the first network slice with the source network node only after the second data session on the second network slice with the target network node is ongoing. That is, there may be simultaneous communication of user data on the first slice with the source node and on the second slice with the target node).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Gursu and incorporate it into the system of Salkintzis to reduce the interruption time resulting from establishing the second data session on the second network slice (¶ 0066).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0239154 to Horn et al.
US 2019/0029000 to Vikberg et al.
US 2020/0022061 to Jin et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights