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 .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on August 9,2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the details for S101-S103 of FIG.1 as described in the specification (see Paragraph [0076]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0160769 A1) in view of Velev et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2026/0101257 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tiwari et al. teach a method performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (Fig(s).2 @ 206 and 7 @ 206a) for performing slice management in a wireless network, the method comprising:
performing a first network slice-specific authentication and authorization (NSSAA) procedure for a single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) (read as “the AMF device (206) may decide to perform the NSSAA process for the requested S_NSSAI slice (116a) …”(Fig.7 @ 750; Paragraph [0075])); and
performing a second NSSAA procedure for the alternative S-NSSAI unaffected by the network slice replacement. (Fig.7 @ 750)
However, Tiwari et al. fail to explicitly teach receiving, a notification for the S-NSSAI including an alternative S-NSSAI to replace the S-NSSAI for a network slice replacement;
based on the notification, determining the S-NSSAI to be replaced with the alternative S-NSSAI;
Velev et al. teach a method for receiving, a notification for the S-NSSAI including an alternative S-NSSAI to replace the S-NSSAI for a network slice replacement (Fig.7 @ 710);
based on the notification, determining the S-NSSAI to be replaced with the alternative S-NSSAI (Fig.7 @ 720);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining to replace a S-NSSAI as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claim 8, Tiwari et al. teach an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (Fig(s).2 @ 206 and 7 @ 206a) for performing slice management in a wireless network (Fig(s).1, 2, and 3A), the AMF entity (Fig(s).2 @ 206 and 7 @ 206a) comprising:
a transceiver (Fig.7 @ 720); and
at least one processor (Fig.7 @ 710) configured to:
perform a first network slice-specific authentication and authorization (NSSAA) procedure for a single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) (read as “the AMF device (206) may decide to perform the NSSAA process for the requested S_NSSAI slice (116a) …”(Fig.7 @ 750; Paragraph [0075])), and
perform a second NSSAA procedure for the alternative S-NSSAI unaffected by the network slice replacement.(Fig.7 @ 750)
However, Tiwari et al. fail to explicitly teach the steps to receive, a notification for the S-NSSAI including an alternative S-NSSAI to replace the S-NSSAI for a network slice replacement,
based on the notification, determine the S-NSSAI to be replaced with the alternative S-NSSAI,
Velev et al. teach a method to receive, a notification for the S-NSSAI including an alternative S-NSSAI to replace the S-NSSAI for a network slice replacement (Fig.7 @ 710);
based on the notification, determine the S-NSSAI to be replaced with the alternative S-NSSAI (Fig.7 @ 720);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining to replace a S-NSSAI as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, and as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, Tiwari et al. teach “method and apparatus for network slice authentication and authorization.”(Fig(s).1-2, and 7; Paragraph [0002]),
However, Tiwari et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein in case that the S-NSSAI is determined to be replaced with the alternative S-NSSAI during the first NSSAA procedure for the S-NSSAI.
Velev et al. teach a method wherein in case that the S-NSSAI is determined to be replaced with the alternative S-NSSAI during the first NSSAA procedure for the S-NSSAI. (Fig.7 @ 720)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining to replace a S-NSSAI as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, and as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, Tiwari et al., as modified by Velev et al., teach a method and an AMF entity (Fig.2 @ 206) wherein the notification is a network slice availability notification received from a network slice selection function (NSSF). (Fig(s).1 and 2 @ 218)
Regarding claims 5 and 12, and as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, Tiwari et al. teach “method and apparatus for network slice authentication and authorization.”(Fig(s).1-2, and 7; Paragraph [0002])
However, Tiwari et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the notification is access and mobility related policy notification received from a policy control function (PCF).
Velev et al. teach a method wherein the notification is access and mobility related policy notification received from a policy control function (PCF). (read as policy control function (PCF) (Paragraph [0038]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the policy control function (PCF) as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, and as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, Tiwari et al. teach “method and apparatus for network slice authentication and authorization.”(Fig(s).1-2, and 7; Paragraph [0002])
However, Tiwari et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the notification is received from an operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM).
Velev et al. teach a method wherein the notification is received from an operation, administration, and maintenance (OAM).(read as OAM system (Fig.6; Paragraph(s) [0038] and [0082]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ OAM system as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0160769 A1) in view of Velev et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2026/0101257 A1), and ETSI (“TS 129 531 V16.6.0”, April 2021).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, and as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, Tiwari et al. teach “method and apparatus for network slice authentication and authorization.”(Fig(s).1-2, and 7; Paragraph [0002])
Velev et al. teach “a first network function “NF” for wireless communication, a method for a first NF to determine a replacement of a network slice, a second NF for wireless communication, and a method for a second NF to determine a replacement of a network slice.”(Paragraph [0001])
However, Tiwari et al. and Velev et al. fail to explicitly teach identifying whether the second NSSAA procedure for the alternative S-NSSAI is completed as success; and
in case that the second NSSAA procedure for the alternative S-NSSAI is completed as success, performing the network slice replacement.
The ETSI document teaches a method identifying whether the second NSSAA procedure for the alternative S-NSSAI is completed as success (read as “200 OK” (Section 5.3.2.2.1, page 14)); and
in case that the second NSSAA procedure for the alternative S-NSSAI is completed as success, performing the network slice replacement. (read as Nnssf_NSSAIA vailability API (Section A.3, pages (63-74)))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Nnssf_NSSAIA vailability API as taught by the ETSI document the function for determining to replace a S-NSSAI as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tiwari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0160769 A1), in view of Velev et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2026/0101257 A1), and Faccin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0258836 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, and as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, Tiwari et al. teach “method and apparatus for network slice authentication and authorization.”(Fig(s).1-2, and 7; Paragraph [0002])
Velev et al. teach “a first network function “NF” for wireless communication, a method for a first NF to determine a replacement of a network slice, a second NF for wireless communication, and a method for a second NF to determine a replacement of a network slice.”(Paragraph [0001])
wherein the current slice requires a replacement based on a congestion status on at least one of a user plane (UP) or a control plane (CU) (read as “The determination may be based on new data analytics received from the NWDAF about the overload or congestion (e.g. in user plane or in control plane) of the S-NSSAI or the inability of the S-NSSAI to fulfil the service level agreements (SLA) negotiated for the services offered by the S-NSSAI.”(Paragraph [0094])),
However, Tiwari et al. and Velev et al. fail to explicitly teach dropping a session associated with a current slice, and
wherein the current slice comprises a plurality of protocol data unit (PDU) sessions.
Faccin et al. teach a method for dropping a session associated with a current slice (read as PDU session is dropped (Paragraph [0161])), and
wherein the current slice comprises a plurality of protocol data unit (PDU) sessions. (read as “ the UE may provide to the MME in NAS MM procedures (e.g. TAU) a “Slicing Information Container” that may contain a mapping between the PDU sessions and the corresponding slices (that is, mapping of PDU Session ID to S-NSSAI).”(Paragraph [0161]) Also, “The AMF may use the information in the container to map the PDU sessions to the appropriate slices (i.e. S-NSSAI).” (Paragraph [0161]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for determining to replace a S-NSSAI as taught by Velev et al. with the AMF device as taught by Tiwari et al. for the purpose of enhancing slicing replacement by devices in a communication network.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Ianev et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0264427 A1) teach “a Network Function node for network slice quota, includes: means for managing network slice quota on a number of user equipment, UE, per network slice.”(Paragraph [0044]) For example, Ianev et al. teach a “new Network Slice Quota (NSQ) service and service operations for Network Slice quota subscription, monitoring, update and notification in both, the home network and in the visiting network.”(Abstract)
Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0240174 A1) teach a method for “handling of Network Slice-Specific Authentication and Authorization (NSSAA) failures due to network error or timeout.”(Paragraph [0001])
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights