CTNF 18/697,238 CTNF 88784 DETAILED ACTION This office action is a response to an application filed on 03/29/2024, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination. Priority Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 12, 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Velev et al. (hereinafter, “Velev”; 20200059989) . In response to claims 1 and 14, Velev teaches an apparatus comprising for performing a control entity function, the apparatus further comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to ( paragraph 65, AMF is equated to an apparatus, paragraphs 51-52 together teach using at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ): receive a service continuity requirement for one or more applications of one or more user equipment (UEs) ( paragraph 60, UE is equated to a UE, fig. 5, step 522, paragraph 60,receiving a message at step 522 the AMF based on a NAS registration request message described in paragraph 60 is read as receiving a service continuity requirement, paragraphs 38 and 49, using a smart phone as a user equipment (UE) as described in paragraph 39 having input from a touch screen or from a touch sensitive display explicitly teaches using one or more applications by the UE ); determine a query corresponding to a slice availability, a status at a target service area, or a combination thereof based on the service continuity requirement ( paragraph 65, NSSAI (network slice selection assistance information) is equated to a slice availability, querying NSSF explicitly teaches using a query, paragraph 66, new registration area is equated to a target area, availability or unviability of NSi slice based on the NSSAI is equated to a status at a target service area, determining the allowed NSSAI in the current registration explicitly teaches determining a query corresponding to a slice availability ); determine a slice related adaptation for the application to maintain application service continuity based on the service continuity requirement and a slice parameter ( paragraph 65, network configuration and policies are equated to slice parameter, paragraph 66, availability or unviability of NSi slice based on the NSSAI is also equated to continuation service, current registration for new NSi is equated to service continuity requirement, determining the allowed NSSAI in the current registration explicitly teaches this limitation ), wherein the slice related adaptation comprises: an application mapping to a target slice at the target service area ( paragraph 66, subset of the allowed NSSAI in the hold registration area is explicitly teaches mapping the application, determining to allow NSSAI for current registration that include subset of old NSSAI is interpreted as mapping the application to a target slice at the target service area ); a slice modification to extend slice availability to the target service area ( paragraph 66, available slice in the new registration area is equated to a slice to extend slice availability to the target service area, determining to allow NSSAI for current registration that include subset of old NSSAI explicitly teaches this limitation ); a dynamic slice instantiation at the target service area; or some a combination thereof ( paragraph 66, determining to allow NSSAI for current registration that include subset of old NSSAI explicitly teaches performing some a combination thereof ); translate the slice related adaptation to a trigger action for transmission to at least one network entity, at least one management entity, or a combination thereof ( fig. 5, NSSF 514 is equated to a network entity, step 528, paragraph 65, the fifth communication with one or more messages explicitly teaches this limitation ); and transmit the trigger action to the at least one network entity, the at least one management entity, or the combination thereof ( fig. 5, NSSF 514 is equated to a network entity, fig. 5, step 528, paragraph 65, the fifth communication with one or more messages explicitly teaches this limitation ). In response to claims 2 and 17, Velev teaches wherein the service continuity requirement is received from a communication layer of the user equipment UE, the application, a network entity, an application server, or a combination thereof ( fig. 5, NSSF 514 is equated to a network entity, paragraph 66, current registration for new NSi is equated to service continuity requirement, determining about availably of NSi by the AMF based on exchanged information form NSSI is interpreted as the service continuity requirement is received from a network entity ). In response to claims 12, Velev teaches wherein the service continuity requirement is received from an edge enabler client, an edge enabler server, an application enabler server, an application enabler client, or a combination thereof ( fig. 5, NSSF 514 is equated to an application enabler client, paragraph 66, current registration for new NSi is equated to service continuity requirement, determining about availably of NSi by the AMF based on exchanged information form NSSI is interpreted as the service continuity requirement is received from a network entity ). In response to claims 15 and 16, Velev teaches an apparatus comprising for performing a network function device, the apparatus further comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the apparatus to ( paragraph 59, NSSF is equated to an apparatus, paragraphs 51-52 together teach using at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory ): a receiver that receive a trigger action ( paragraph 52, receiver 312 is equated to a receiver, fig. 6, step 528, paragraph 65, a fifth communication 528 is equated to a trigger action received by the apparatus ); a processor that determine a network action based on the trigger action ( paragraph 66, exchanging information between the NSSF and AMF (for determining NSSAI by the AMF based on message at step 528) in interpreted as the processor of the NSSF determines availability of NSSF (for the AMF) or determines a network action based on the trigger action ); and a transmitter that transmits transmit a response to the trigger action based on a result of the network action ( paragraph 52, transmitter is equated to a transmitter, paragraph 66, exchanging information between the NSSF and AMF (for determining NSSAI by the AMF based on message at step 528) explicitly teaches this limitation ). In response to claim 20, Velev teaches further comprising requesting and receiving elements from a further control entity responsible for the target service area ( fig. 5, SMF 510 is equated to further control entity, paragraph 67,reaching to one or more SMF is interpreted as requesting t o a further control entity responsible for the target service area , fig. 5, step 534,communication through 532-543 between the AMF and SMF as shown in figure 5 is interpreted as receiving elements from a further control entity responsible for the target service area ) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-11, 13 and 18-19 are 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. As for dependent claims 3 and 18, these dependent claims are objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive at least one slice parameter for supported slices of the application based on a mapping, wherein the at least one slice parameter comprises a generic network slice template parameter, a capability exposure level, a slice key performance indicator, a service profile, slice profile, a slice template, application permissions over a supported slice, application restrictions over the supported slice, network data analytics for one or more supported slices, or some a combination thereof.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. Claims 4 and 19 are objected, these claims depend on claim 3 and 18. As for dependent claim 5, these dependent claims are objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the query comprises requesting and receiving elements from a further control entity responsible for the target service area.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. As for dependent claim 6, this claim is objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to transmit the query to obtain information about capabilities, conditions, or a combination thereof for: a network entity, a management entity, a UE, a data network, an edge platform, a cloud platform, an application server, or a combination thereof.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. Claim 7 is objected, because this claim depends on claim 6. As for dependent claim 8, this dependent claim is objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive a first mapping of the application to a first slice as part of the slice parameter.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. As for dependent claim 9, this dependent claim is objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the trigger action corresponds to a further registration, a registration update, or a combination thereof for the one or more (UEs) to the network supporting the target slice at the target service area.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. As for dependent claim 10, this dependent claim is objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the trigger action corresponds to triggering a slice modification, a slice creation, a slice provisioning, a slice parameter change, a user equipment UE route selection policy rule adaptation, a policy and charging control rule adaptation, a slice priority change, a slice preference change, a slice profile adaptation, a slice profile attribute remapping for the application, or a combination thereof for the at least one network entity, the at least one management entity, or the combination thereof.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. As for dependent claim 11, this dependent claim is objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the apparatus to receive receiver receives a response from the at least one network entity, the at least one management entity, or the combination thereof in response to the trigger action to indicate a result of the trigger action.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. As for dependent claim 13, this dependent claim is objected, because these is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the service continuity requirement comprises: an expected migration requirement for an application to a target service area; a predicted migration requirement for the application to the target service area; a requirement to check a slice continuity at the target service area; a requirement to support the slice continuity at the target service area; an expected handover of a UE to a target cell; a predicted handover of the UE to the target cell; the expected handover of the UE to a registration area; the predicted handover of the UE to the registration area; or some a combination thereof.” The closest reasonable prior art in the record Velev et al. (20200059989) teaches in paragraphs 59-70 about using a handover procedure based on available resources in anew cell and capability of a UE, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 20200014762………………..paragraphs 78-89 and 95-105. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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. /ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 /CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 2 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 3 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 4 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 6 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 7 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 8 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 9 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 10 Art Unit: 2466 Application/Control Number: 18/697,238 Page 11 Art Unit: 2466
Prosecution Insights