DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 18/858,851 filed on October 22, 2024, as a 371 National Stage entry of International Application Number PCT/EP2023/060541. The preliminary amendment filed October 22, 2024, has been entered. Claims 15-17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9 and 11-14 are currently amended. New Claims 18-23 are added. Claims 1-14 and 18-23 are pending and are examined.
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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a 371 National Stage entry of International Application Number PCT/Ep2023/060541, filed April 21, 2023, which claims the benefit of Provisional Application Ser. No. 63/333,700 filed on April 22, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 23, 2025, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references, except where lined through, have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Drawings
Figures 1, 5A and 5B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because, in Figure 2, the text label for step 3A, “3A. MODIFY NSI PROCEDURE”, should be “3A. MODIFY NSI PROCEDURE IF NEEDED – PROCEED TO 4.”, the line connecting Step 3A to Step 3B-1 (i.e., the line connecting the box labeled “3A MODIFY NSI PROCEDURE” to the box labeled “DERIVE THE NETWORK SLICE SUBNET RELATED REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING:”) should be removed, and the line representing the “NEW” branch from the decision diamond labeled “NEW OR EXISTING NSI” should connect through so that it touches the box labeled “DERIVE THE NETWORK SLICE SUBNET RELATED REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING:”. 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of MPEP 2173.02:
“A decision on whether a claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1350, 94 USPQ2d 1241, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1 USPQ2d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 1986).”
In the present case, “those skilled in the art” are presumed to be familiar with the technical specifications (i.e., TS 23.531, TS 28.541 and TS 23.501) cited by the disclosure and possess understanding of the terminology and naming conventions used therein.
Specifically, with regards to dependent Claims 3 and 4, it is presumed that one of skill in the art would understand the meaning of the terminology presented, e.g., that “S” refers to the “support qualifier” property of an attribute, that “O” means “optional”, and that “S=O” means that the associated attribute is not strictly required to be supported by the network element.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
regarding Claim 1,
the phrase “a request for a network slice instance (NSI) allocation” recited in line 3 should be “a network slice instance (NSI) allocation request”,
the term “a new network slice instance” recited in line 6 should be “the new NSI”,
the acronym “NSSI” recited in line 11 should be spelled out as “network slice subnet instance (NSSI)”, and
the term “network slice subnet instance (NSSI)” recited in line 13 should be “NSSI”;
regarding Claim 9,
the phrase “a request for a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) allocation” recited in line 3 should be “a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) allocation request”;
regarding Claim 11,
the word “comprises” recited in line 2 should be “comprise”;
regarding Claim 14,
the word “receiving” recited in line 6 should be “receive”,
the phrase “a request for a network slice instance (NSI) allocation” recited in line 6 should be “a network slice instance (NSI) allocation request”,
the word “determining” recited in line 8 should be “determine”,
the term “a new network slice instance” recited in line 9 should be “the new NSI”,
the acronym “NSSI” recited in line 14 should be spelled out as “network slice subnet instance (NSSI)”, and
the term “network slice subnet instance (NSSI)” recited in line 15 should be “NSSI”;
regarding Claim 21,
the phrase “a request for a network slice instance (NSI) allocation” recited in line 5 should be “a network slice instance (NSI) allocation request”,
the word “determining” recited in line 7 should be “determine”,
the term “a new network slice instance” recited in line 8 should be “the new NSI”,
the acronym “NSSI” recited in line 13 should be spelled out as “network slice subnet instance (NSSI)”, and
the term “network slice subnet instance (NSSI)” recited in line 15 should be “NSSI”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should Claim 14 be found allowable, Claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the duplicate claim warning above, based on the limitations of dependent Claims 21 and 22, the Examiner believes that new Claim 21 was intended to be a system/device claim version of independent method Claim 9 but received the limitations corresponding to Claim inadvertently.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “responsive to the type of the slice being a SST for fixed wireless access (FWA), obtaining a cell identifier list (CellIDList) of cells where the NSSI is to be created” in lines 10-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the type of the slice” in the claims. Additionally, as defined by the specification and in the claim, “NSI” is the acronym for “network slice instance”, while “NSSI” is the acronym for “network slice subnet instance”, and these are distinct elements. See, for example, paragraph [0002] of the specification. In some places, the specification discloses obtaining “a cell identifier list, CellIDList, of cells where the NSSI is to be created”, as is recited in the claim. See for example, paragraphs [0014] and [0057] of the specification. However, in other places, the specification discloses that the obtaining the CellIDList comprises converting or translating the subArea attribute “into the CellIDList where the network slice instance is to be created”. See for example, paragraphs [0051] and [0058] of the specification. Further, Claim 2 states “converting the subArea attribute into the CellIDList where the network slice instance is to be created”. Due to the inconsistencies in the specification and claims, it is unclear whether there is a typo in Claim 1, i.e., “the NSSI” recited in line 11 should be “the NSI”, or whether NSSI is the correct acronym and is simply lacking antecedent basis at this point in the claim.
Additionally, Claim 1 recites the limitation “allocating a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) procedure based on the CellIDList” in lines 12-23. The meaning of “allocating a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) procedure” is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
Continuing, Claim 1 recites the limitation “associating the NSSI with the NSI” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the NSI” in the claims.
Dependent Claims 2-8 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 1 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, the limitation “responsive to the type of the slice being a SST for fixed wireless access (FWA)” recited in line 10 is interpreted as “responsive to the type of the SST being fixed wireless access (FWA)”, the limitation “obtaining a cell identifier list (CellIDList) of cells where the NSSI is to be created” recited in lines 11-12 is interpreted as “obtaining a cell identifier list (CellIDList) of cells where the new NSI is to be created”, the limitation “allocating a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) procedure based on the CellIDList” recited in is interpreted as “allocating a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) based on the CellIDList”, and the term “the NSI” recited in line 15 is interpreted as “the new NSI”, respectively.
Additionally, Claim 2 recites the limitation “converting the subArea attribute into the CellIDList where the network slice instance is to be created” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the CellIDList where the network slice instance is to be created” in the claims.
Dependent Claims 3 and 4 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 2 in view of their dependence thereon.
For examination purposes, the term “the CellIDList where the network slice instance is to be created” is interpreted as “the CellIDList of cells where the new NSI is to be created”.
Additionally, Claim 5 recites the limitation “further comprising determining the type of slice based on an SST value” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the type of slice” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the term “the type of slice” is interpreted as “the type of the SST”.
Dependent Claim 6 is rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 5 in view of its dependence thereon.
Additionally, Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein determining the type of slice based on the SST value comprises determining the type of slice is a fixed wireless access slice based on the SST value being a service type value allocated to the fixed wireless access slice/service type” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “the type of slice” and “the fixed wireless access slice/service type” in the claims.
For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “wherein determining the type of the SST based on the SST value comprises determining the type of the SST is FWA based on the SST value being a service type value allocated to FWA”.
Additionally Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein receiving the request for the NSI allocation comprises receiving the request for the NSI allocation from an NSMS consumer” in lines 1-3. The relationship between “an NSMS_consumer” recited here and “a network slice management service consumer (NSMS_consumer”) recited in Claim 1 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Can this be any NSMS_consumer or is this the same NSMS_consumer that receives the allocate NSI response in Claim 1?
Claim 9 recites the limitation “completing an allocation procedure to complete a network slice subnet instance allocation” in lines 13-14. The relationship between “a network slice subnet instance allocation” and “the new NSSI” recited earlier is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Is the NSSI allocation that is completed the new NSSI that was determined to be created based on the network slice subnet related requirements?
Dependent Claims 10-13 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 9 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein receiving the request for the NSSI allocation comprises receiving the request for the NSSI allocation from an NSSMS_consumer” in lines 1-3. The relationship between “an NSSMS_consumer” recited here and “a network slice subnet management service consumer (NSSMS_consumer”) recited in Claim 9 is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite. Can this be any NSSMS_consumer or is this the same NSSMS_consumer that receives the allocate NSSI response in Claim 9?
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 10-13 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 9 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 2.
Additionally, insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 5.
Additionally, insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 6.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 22 and 23 are rejected for the reasons presented above with respect to rejected Claim 21 in view of their dependence thereon.
Additionally, Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the network node is configured to execute the procedure by provisioning only cells that were identified by a network slice instance allocation procedure” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the procedure” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 21 to replace the limitations that correspond with the limitations of independent method Claim 1 with limitations corresponding to the limitations of independent method Claim 9 to overcome the rejection.
Additionally, Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein the network node is configured to receive the request for the NSSI allocation by receiving the request for the NSSI allocation from an NSSMS_consumer” in lines 1-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the request for the NSSI allocation” in the claims.
The Examiner suggests amending Claim 21 to replace the limitations that correspond with the limitations of independent method Claim 1 with limitations corresponding to the limitations of independent method Claim 9 and making a corresponding amendment to Claim 23 replacing “an NSSMS_consumer” with “the NSSMS_consumer” to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Technical Specification 28.531 V17.3.0, hereby “3GPP” in view of Gibson, Pub. No. US 2020/0359224 A1.
Regarding Claim 9, 3GPP discloses “A method by a network node to allocate a network slice subnet instance (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": a procedure performed by NSSMS_Provider, i.e., a network node, for allocating a network slice subnet instance), the method comprising:
receiving a request for a network slice subnet instance (NSSI) allocation, the request having network slice subnet related requirements (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": Step 1 - NSSMS_Provider receives AllocateNSSI request including network slice subnet related requirements from NSSMS_Consumer);
determining whether to use an existing NSSI or create a new NSSI based on the network slice subnet related requirements and existing NSSI capabilities (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": Step 3 - NSSMS_Provider decides whether to use an existing NSSI or create a new NSSI);
responsive to determining to create the new NSSI, deriving network slice subnet constituent related requirements based on the network slice subnet related requirements... (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": Step 4.1b.1 - in response to deciding to create a new NSSI, NSSMS_Provider derives the corresponding network slice subnet constituent related requirements from the network slice subnet related requirements provided with the request); and
completing an allocation procedure to complete a network slice subnet instance allocation (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": Step 4.1b.3a - NSSMS_Provider invokes NSSI Allocation Procedure to create the new NSSI); and
transmitting an allocate NSSI response to a network slice subnet management service consumer (NSSMS_consumer) (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": Step 5 - NSSMS_Provider sends AllocateNssi response to NSSMS_Consumer).”
However, while 3GPP discloses deriving network slice subnet constituent related requirements from the network slice subnet related requirements in response to determining to create a new NSSI and completing an NSSI allocation procedure to create the new NSSI (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation"), 3GPP does not explicitly disclose “responsive to determining to create the new NSSI, deriving network slice subnet constituent related requirements based on the network slice subnet related requirements, wherein deriving the network slice subnet constituent related requirements comprises checking for a slice service type (SST) for a fixed wireless access (FWA) (emphasis added);
responsive to the SST being for a FWA, executing a procedure based on the network slice subnet related requirements”.
In the same field of endeavor, Gibson discloses determining the SST value associated with a requested S-NSSAI and provisioning the network resource slice configuration based on the determined SST value (Gibson fig. 5 and paragraphs 35 and 44-46) and further suggests that that network slice requested may be optimized for fixed wireless access (Gibson fig. 8 and paragraphs 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of 3GPP to determine the SST value associated with the requested slice as indicating fixed wireless access and to configure the new network slice instance in response to the determining as taught by Gibson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine determining the SST value associated with the requested slice as indicating fixed wireless access and configuring the new network slice instance based on the determination to provide a network slice that is optimized for fixed wireless access (Gibson paragraphs 53 and 54).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of 3GPP and Gibson discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Additionally, 3GPP discloses “wherein the network node is configured to perform operations of a network slice subnet management service provider (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": the network node is NSSMS_Provider).”
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of 3GPP and Gibson discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9.
Additionally, 3GPP discloses “wherein receiving the request for the NSSI allocation comprises receiving the request for the NSSI allocation from an NSSMS_consumer (3GPP fig. 7.3-1 and § "7.3 Procedure of Network Slice Subnet Instance Allocation": Step 1 - NSSMS_Provider receives AllocateNSSI request including network slice subnet related requirements from NSSMS_Consumer).”
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM ET.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449