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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “At no point do Godin or Naseer-Ul-Islam disclose an AMF "transmitting, to the UE, a UE configuration update message for updating the UE configuration based on the determination," as claimed, nor does the Examiner assert as much. That is, Godin and Naseer-Ul-Islam are silent with respect to an AMF transmitting, to the UE, a UE configuration update message for updating the UE configuration based on the determination.
Therefore, the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the above- identified claim features recited in independent claim 1. As such, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper. Though differing in scope, independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite similar limitations and are patentable for at least the same reasons.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As best understood by the Examiner this element is taught as cited in the rejection.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the rejection is maintained as proper and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-,2-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godin et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2024/0015599 A1 in view of NASEER-UL-ISLAM GB 2628837, hereinafter, ‘NASEER-UL-ISLAM’.
Consider Claim 1, Godin teaches a method performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) (e.g., see AMF in at least 106 of figure 1 ) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a requested network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) (e.g., 120 of figure 1-“ the UE may indicate during registration (e.g., in a registration request to an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF)) a slice update assistance information element. This slice update assistance information element may indicate one or more possible modes of operation for the UE with respect to the UE's consent to the use of alternative network slices” -0030- Mobility may be made slice-aware in case of network slicing as described in, for example, 3GPP TS 38.300, section 16.3.4.5. The single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) may be included as part the packet data unit (PDU) session information that is transferred during mobility signaling to enable slice-aware admission and congestion control); receiving, from a unified data management (UDM), a subscribed single - NSSAI (S-NSSAI)(e.g., see at least 132 of figure 1 ); Godin further teaches determining whether an S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is either the subscribed S-NSSAI or an alternative S-NSSAI in a UE context(e.g., see at least figures 2 and 3 subscribed and alternative NSSAI); transmitting, to the UE, a UE configuration update message for updating a UE configuration based on the determination (e.g., see at least figure 4A and 4B -configuration update -425, and element 520 of figures 5 and 6).
Godin does not specifically teach determining whether an S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is either the subscribed S-NSSAI or an alternative S-NSSAI in a UE context; determining whether to update a UE configuration in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is neither the subscribed S-NSSAI nor the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context.
In analogous art, NASEER-UL-ISLAM teaches “the Alternative S-NSSAI or Alternative HPLMN S-NSSAI may be part or not part of the Subscribed S-NSSAI”- page 25 lines 4-7, “when a UE supports the Network slice replacement feature and a S-NSSAI is replaced by an Alternative S-NSSAI, the AMF may provide the NSAG information also including the Alternative S-NSSAI to the UE even if the Alternative SNSSAI is not part of the UE Configured NSSAI” – page 30 lines 11-14, “if the AMF determines that the S-NSSAI is to be replaced, the AMF sends the mapping of the S-NSSAI to the Alternative S-NSSAI (with any Replacement Assistance Information if the UE supports slice aware Network Slice based cell reselection and Random Access) to the UE in the UE Configuration Update message or in the Registration Accept message.” – page 31 lines 1-8.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try determining whether an S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is either the subscribed S-NSSAI or an alternative S-NSSAI in a UE context; determining whether to update a UE configuration in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is neither the subscribed S-NSSAI nor the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context for the purpose of Network slice replacement as suggested by NASEER-UL-ISLAM.
Consider claims 2 and 12, Godin teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing information on mapping of the S-NSSAI to the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context (this is met based on at least 0050 “FIG. 2 depicts an example of the network slicing mapping configuration information for fallback to a degraded capability for the network slice, in accordance with some example embodiments. As noted, the OAM (or other core network node) may provide, at 115, this network slicing mapping configuration information” -.
Consider claims 4 and 14 , Godin teaches the claimed invention further comprising: transmitting, to the UE, a message including information on mapping of the S-NSSAI to the alternative S-NSSAI to the UE, in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context, wherein the message is a UE configuration update message or a registration accept message (e.g., see at least figure 6 – “If the user equipment 102 (or associated end user) accepts at 660 the request, the user equipment triggers at 662 a registration procedure indicating the acceptance of the update in the registration request message. In response, the AMF 105 updates the RAN 104 about the UE's consent to apply the re-mapping with a message at 664, such as an NGAP UE context modify request, which the RAN acknowledges at 668 with a response, such as a UE context modify response.”)
Consider claims 5 and 15 Godin teaches the claimed invention further comprising: transmitting, to the UE, a registration accept message including an allow NSSAI in case that in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is either the subscribed S-NSSAI or the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context(e.g., see at least figure 6 – “If the user equipment 102 (or associated end user) accepts at 660 the request, the user equipment triggers at 662 a registration procedure indicating the acceptance of the update in the registration request message. In response, the AMF 105 updates the RAN 104 about the UE's consent to apply the re-mapping with a message at 664, such as an NGAP UE context modify request, which the RAN acknowledges at 668 with a response, such as a UE context modify response.”).
Consider Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected based on the rationale noted with respect to Claim 1.
Consider Claims 7 and 17, Godin teaches configuring information on mapping of the S-NSSAI to the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context (e.g., see at least 0073 – “a process for slice re-mapping for a UE configured to allow re-mapping of network slices “upon request,” in accordance with some example embodiments”.
Consider Claims 8 and 18, Godin teaches the claimed invention further comprising: receiving, from the AMF, a UE configuration update message for updating a UE configuration based on the determination (e.g., see at least figure 4A and 4B -configuration update -425, and element 520 of figures 5 and 6).
Consider Claims 9 and 19, Godin teaches the claimed invention further comprising: receiving, from the AMF, a message including information on mapping of the S-NSSAI to the alternative S-NSSAI to the UE, in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context, wherein the message is a UE configuration update message or a registration accept message(e.g., see at least figure 6 – “If the user equipment 102 (or associated end user) accepts at 660 the request, the user equipment triggers at 662 a registration procedure indicating the acceptance of the update in the registration request message. In response, the AMF 105 updates the RAN 104 about the UE's consent to apply the re-mapping with a message at 664, such as an NGAP UE context modify request, which the RAN acknowledges at 668 with a response, such as a UE context modify response.”)
Consider Claims 10 and 20, Godin teaches the claimed invention further comprising: receiving, from the AMF, a registration accept message including an allow NSSAI in case that in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is either the subscribed S-NSSAI or the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context(e.g., see at least figure 6 – “If the user equipment 102 (or associated end user) accepts at 660 the request, the user equipment triggers at 662 a registration procedure indicating the acceptance of the update in the registration request message. In response, the AMF 105 updates the RAN 104 about the UE's consent to apply the re-mapping with a message at 664, such as an NGAP UE context modify request, which the RAN acknowledges at 668 with a response, such as a UE context modify response.”)
Consider Claim 11, is rejected based on the rationale noted in claim 1, the architecture is illustrated based on 0088 and figure 9.
Consider Claim 16, is rejected based on the rationale noted in claim 1, the architecture is illustrated based on 0090 and figure 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
3GPP; TSG SA; System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 18)`, 3GPP TS 23.501 V18.2.2, 07 July 2023 teaches a method performed by an AMF, the method comprising (e.g., see page 251) receiving, from a UE, a Requested NSSAI (see page 251); and receiving, from a UDM, Subscribed S-NSSAIs (page 246). Determining whether an S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is either the subscribed S-NSSAI or an alternative S-NSSAI in a UE context; and determining whether to update a UE configuration in case that the S-NSSAI in the requested NSSAI is neither the subscribed S-NSSAI nor the alternative S-NSSAI in the UE context is met based on (page 282) "the AMF may determine that an S-NSSAI is to be replaced with Alternative S-NSSAI, (page 252) "AMF checks whether it can serve all the S-NSSAI(s) from the Requested NSSAI present in the Subscribed S-NSSAIs", and (page 282) "the AMF provides the Alternative S-NSSAI for this S-NSSAI in the Allowed NSSAI and in the Configured NSSAI, if not included yet, and the mapping between S-NSSAI(s) to Alternative S-NSSAI(s) to the UE in UE Configuration Update message").
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights