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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
1. This is in response to application filed on 9/20/2024 in which claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 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 § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
a. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 5 and 9 recites “…a computer program...", however, claim 5 and 9 specifically failed to define the “computer program” in the claims.”
Appropriate corrections/rewording are required.
b. Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 6 and 10 recite “…carrier comprising the computer program of claims 5 and 9...". Claim 10 specifically defines the “carrier” as one of an electronic signal, an optical signal, an electromagnetic signal, a magnetic signal, an electric signal, a radio signal, a microwave signal, or a computer-readable storage medium.
Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the “carrier” to include transitory medium, which does not fall under statutory subject matter.
Appropriate corrections/rewording are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cai et al., (US 2020/0169951), (hereinafter, Cai) in view of Wang et al., (US 2021/0235372), (hereinafter, Wang).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6 and 9-11, Cai discloses a method/ computer program/carrier performed by a core network node for handling one or more rules for a User Equipment, UE, in a network, and where the core network node is operating in the network, and wherein the network is comprised in a wireless communications network (= network slicing architecture 500 includes slice selection server 502 which is an element for a core network 102, see [0058-59]), the method comprising:
receiving capability data from the UE, which capability data relates to the UE's capabilities to support rules for use of one or more network slices (= UE 908 sends an attachment request to AN 104 including UE capability and a requested services, see [0068]),
obtaining one or more rules relating to a use of one or more network slices allowed in the network (= server 502 sends a policy request in response to receiving the attach request; charging server 552 may identifies charging policy for UE 908; and charging rules are mapped to different network slices authorized for UE 908, see [0068 and 0069]),
deciding that the UE is capable to support rules for use of one or more network slices in the network according to the one or more rules, based on the received capability data and the obtained one or more rules (= server 550 determines the slice selection policy based on the charging rules, see [0068]; and charging rule ID indicates a charging rule and rate for usages and service requested in the attach request, see [0069]).
Cai explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“sending to the UE, the one or more rules that the UE is capable to support, and where the one or more rules are to be applied by the UE for use of one or more network slices in the network,
enforcing the one or more rules relating to the of use of one or more network slices applied by the UE in the network”.
However, Wang, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“sending to the UE, the one or more rules that the UE is capable to support, and where the one or more rules are to be applied by the UE for use of one or more network slices in the network (= upon acquiring information on the one or more network slices suitable for the terminal device, the network node adds the information on the network slice to the network slice query response, and the response is delivered to the terminal device in step 304 and 404, see [0068]) and
enforcing the one or more rules relating to the of use of one or more network slices applied by the UE in the network” (= network node may establish/update a routing policy for the application in the selected network slice; the PCF downloading the routing policy to the terminal device; and once the routing policy is received by the terminal device, verify the routing policy and start transfer of application data over the network slice according to the routing policy, see [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wang with Cai for the benefit of achieving a network that takes into account requirements or preferences of an application in a network slicing selection policies.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Cai further discloses the method wherein the network is represented by any one out of: a Home Public Land Mobile Network, HPLMN, a Visited Public Land Mobile Network, VPLMN, or a Standalone Non-Public Network, SNPN (see, [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned in claim 1, Cai further discloses that the method further comprising: inquiring the one or more rules relating to the use of the one or more network slices allowed in the network wherein the one or more rules are inquired from any one out of: a policy control node or a Network Slice Selection Function NSSF node, and wherein the one or more rules are obtained from the corresponding any one out of: the policy control node or the NSSF node (see, [0078]).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned in claim 1, Cai further discloses the method wherein the one or more rules are obtained by being configured in the core network node (see, [0078]).
Regarding claim 7, Cai discloses a method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for handling one or more rules in a network which network is comprised in a wireless communications network (= network slicing architecture 500 includes slice selection server 502 which is an element for a core network 102, see [0058-59]), the method comprising:
sending to a core network node operating in the network capability data relating to the UE's capabilities to support rules related to a use of one or more network slices, (= UE 908 sends an attachment request to AN 104 including UE capability and a requested services, see [0068]),
receiving from the core network node, one or more rules relating to the of use of one or more network slices (= server 502 sends a policy request in response to receiving the attach request; charging server 552 may identifies charging policy for UE 908; and charging rules are mapped to different network slices authorized for UE 908, see [0068 and 0069]).
Cai explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“wherein the core network node has decided that the UE is capable to support the one or more rules based on the sent capability data and one or more rules allowed in the network (= upon acquiring information on the one or more network slices suitable for the terminal device, the network node adds the information on the network slice to the network slice query response, and the response is delivered to the terminal device in step 304 and 404, see [0068]) and
storing and applying the received one or more rules in the network (= network node may establish/update a routing policy for the application in the selected network slice; the PCF downloading the routing policy to the terminal device; and once the routing policy is received by the terminal device, verify the routing policy and start transfer of application data over the network slice according to the routing policy, see [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Wang with Cai for the benefit of achieving a network that takes into account requirements or preferences of an application in a network slicing selection policies.
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned in claim 7, Cai further discloses the method wherein the network is represented by any one out of: a Home Public Land Mobile Network, HPLMN, a Visited Public Land Mobile Network, VPLMN, or a Standalone Non-Public Network, SNPN (see, [0048]).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned in claim 11, Cai further discloses the core network wherein the network is adapted to be represented by any one out of. a Home Public Land Mobile Network, HPLMN, a Visited Public Land Mobile Network, VPLMN, or a Standalone Non-Public Network, SNPN (see, [0048]).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned in claim 11, Cai further discloses the core network further being configured to: inquire the one or more rules relating to the use of the one or more network slices allowed in the network wherein the one or more rules are to be inquired from any one out of: a policy control node or a Network Slice Selection Function NSSF node, and wherein the one or more rules are adapted to be obtained from the corresponding any one out of: the policy control node or the NSSF node (see, [0078]).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned in claim 11, Cai further discloses the core network wherein the one or more rules are adapted to be obtained by being configured in the core network node (see, [0078]).
CONCLUSION
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Vrzic (US 2017/0086118) teaches system and method for network slice selection.
b. Wei et al., (US 2020/0022033) teaches devices and method for slice-compliant handover control.
c. Wei et al., (US 2020/0383043) teaches apparatus and method for network slicing and side management to support multi-slice services.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KWASI KARIKARI whose telephone number is (571)272-8566. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat: 6am-10pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights