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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024, 03/05/2025, 07/08/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 35 recites “a memory storing instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions”. These are structural terms rather than generic placeholders and the claim uses no means language, so 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked and the limitations are given their plain structural meaning as programmed hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 16, 17, 25, 27, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bor Yaliniz et al. (US 2019/0223055 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bor Yaliniz discloses: A method, comprising: receiving, by a core network (CN), a first trigger for a network slice to transition from an operation state to a hibernation state, a network slice management function, which the present application counts as part of the core network, receiving a trigger to de-activate a network slice instance while the instance is in its operation phase, the de-activated instance being kept without termination so that it can be re-activated later, which is the hibernation state as construed above: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0344] “De-activation 1145 is initiated by a trigger 2910 that is generated or received.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0344] “a request 2912 from the 3GPP entity 2101 to de-activate the NSI”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “the procedure 2900 corresponds to de-activation 1145 during the operation phase 1140”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “it may be decided to keep the NSI (without termination) after de-activation and to re-activate it when a new communication service request is received”).
Furthermore, Bor Yaliniz discloses: the network slice comprising a first slice subnet and a second slice subnet; the network slice instance being made up of constituent network slice subnet instances, the slice requirements being broken down into requirements for the individual sub-slices that a subnet management function manages: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation may trigger NSSI de-activation to de-activate constituent NSSI(s) that are not used by other NSI(s).”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0118] “a network slice management function (NSMF) that breaks down network slice requirements into individual sub-slice requirements and a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) that manages the subnet slices”).
Moreover, Bor Yaliniz discloses: releasing a first resource associated with the first slice subnet, because Bor Yaliniz teaches de-activation of the network slice instance de-activating those of its constituent subnet instances that no other slice instance uses, and de-activation of a subnet instance releasing the resources previously allocated to it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation may trigger NSSI de-activation to de-activate constituent NSSI(s) that are not used by other NSI(s).”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0220] “the other management system 1204 may be requested 1943 to have the TN manager release resources previously allocated to the NSSI.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0222] “Thereupon the NSSI is de-activated 1971.”).
In addition, Bor Yaliniz discloses: while maintaining a second resource associated with the second slice subnet; that only the constituent subnet instances not used by another slice instance are de-activated (i.e., “while maintaining a second resource” as claimed), so a constituent subnet instance that another slice instance is using is left as it is. In another words, Bor Yaliniz teaches that a subnet instance that is not de-activated goes on serving the other slice instance that uses it, and a subnet instance that goes on serving traffic keeps the resources it serves that traffic with (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation includes any actions that make the NSI inactive and not providing any communication services. NSI de-activation may trigger NSSI de-activation to de-activate constituent NSSI(s) that are not used by other NSI(s). In some examples, it may be decided to keep the NSI (without termination) after deactivation and to re-activate it when a new communication service request is received.”).
Furthermore, Bor Yaliniz discloses: causing the network slice to transition to the hibernation state., because Bor Yaliniz teaches the network slice instance being placed in the de-activated state at the end of the procedure, a state in which the instance provides no communication service, has had the resources of its unshared subnets released, and is kept for re-activation: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0357] “Thereupon the NSI is de-activated 2971.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation includes any actions that make the NSI inactive and not providing any communication services.”).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, Bor Yaliniz discloses: The method of claim 16, wherein the hibernation state is a partial hibernation state in which: the first slice subnet is inactive,, because Bor Yaliniz teaches de-activation of the slice instance de-activating only the constituent subnet instances that no other slice instance uses, each such subnet instance ending in the de-activated state: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation may trigger NSSI de-activation to de-activate constituent NSSI(s) that are not used by other NSI(s).”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0222] “Thereupon the NSSI is de-activated 1971.”).
Furthermore, Bor Yaliniz discloses: the second slice subnet is active., because Bor Yaliniz teaches that a constituent subnet instance used by another slice instance is not de-activated: (Bor Yaliniz necessarily so, because a subnet instance that is excluded from de-activation because another slice instance uses it remains in the active state in which it serves that other slice instance (see Bor Yaliniz, para [0343])).
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 16, Bor Yaliniz discloses: The method of claim 16, further comprising: sending, from a NSSMF to a network slice management function (NSMF), a state update of the first slice subnet., Bor Yaliniz teaches the network slice management function asking the network slice subnet management function to de-activate the constituent subnet instances and receiving back from it a message confirming that they have been de-activated, which reports the new state of the subnet: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0346] “sends requests 2931 to the NSSMF 1202 to deactivate the identified NSI(s)”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0346] “In response, the NSMF 1201 may receive a message 2932 confirming that the NSSI(s) ha(ve) been de-activated.”).
Regarding claim 27, which depends on claim 16, Bor Yaliniz discloses: The method of claim 16, further comprising: receiving, by the CN, a second trigger;, because Bor Yaliniz teaches the network slice management function receiving a further trigger, after de-activation, to activate the network slice instance again: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “it may be decided to keep the NSI (without termination) after de-activation and to re-activate it when a new communication service request is received”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0320] “Activation 1141 is initiated by a trigger 2710 that is generated or received.” . . . “a request 2712 from the 3GPP entity 2101 to activate the NSI”).
Furthermore, Bor Yaliniz discloses: restoring the first resource., because Bor Yaliniz teaches that on activation the network slice management function has the inactive subnet instances activated and arranges the resources used to activate the slice instance, the subnet management function obtaining and configuring the resources used to activate the subnet instance: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0321] “The NSMF 1201 identifies any inactive NSSIs associated with the NSI and sends messages 2721 to the NSSMF 1202 to have the NSSMF 1202 activate the NSSI.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0323] “the NSMF 1201 sends a request 2731 to the other management systems to arrange resources that are used to activate the NSI”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0212] “to obtain and/or configure resources that are used to activate the NSSI”).
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive, at a core network (CN), a first trigger for a network slice to transition from an operation state to a hibernation state, the network slice comprising a first slice subnet and a second slice subnet; release a first resource associated with the first slice subnet while maintaining a second resource associated with the second slice subnet; and cause the network slice to transition to the hibernation state. Claim 34 is analogous to claim 16 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 35, Bor Yaliniz discloses: An apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:, because Bor Yaliniz teaches an electronic device that implements the methods it describes, including as a node or function of the core network, and that has a central processing unit and a memory joined by a bus, the memory holding the programs the processor executes: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0071] “may be used for implementing the devices and methods disclosed herein”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0071] “various other nodes or functions within a core network (CN)”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0071] “The ED 52 typically includes a processor 54, such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU)”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0071] “a memory 56, a network interface 58 and a bus 60 to connect the components of ED 52”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0072] “DRAM for program and data storage for use while executing programs”).
Furthermore, Bor Yaliniz discloses: receive, at a core network (CN), a first trigger for a network slice to transition from an operation state to a hibernation state,, because Bor Yaliniz teaches a network slice management function, which the present application counts as part of the core network, receiving a trigger to de-activate a network slice instance while the instance is in its operation phase, the de-activated instance being kept without termination so that it can be re-activated later, which is the hibernation state as construed above: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0344] “De-activation 1145 is initiated by a trigger 2910 that is generated or received.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0344] “a request 2912 from the 3GPP entity 2101 to de-activate the NSI”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “the procedure 2900 corresponds to de-activation 1145 during the operation phase 1140”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “it may be decided to keep the NSI (without termination) after de-activation and to re-activate it when a new communication service request is received”).
Moreover, Bor Yaliniz discloses: the network slice comprising a first slice subnet and a second slice subnet;, because Bor Yaliniz teaches the network slice instance being made up of constituent network slice subnet instances, the slice requirements being broken down into requirements for the individual sub-slices that a subnet management function manages: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation may trigger NSSI de-activation to de-activate constituent NSSI(s) that are not used by other NSI(s).”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0118] “a network slice management function (NSMF) that breaks down network slice requirements into individual sub-slice requirements and a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) that manages the subnet slices”).
In addition, Bor Yaliniz discloses: release a first resource associated with the first slice subnet, because Bor Yaliniz teaches de-activation of the network slice instance de-activating those of its constituent subnet instances that no other slice instance uses, and de-activation of a subnet instance releasing the resources previously allocated to it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation may trigger NSSI de-activation to de-activate constituent NSSI(s) that are not used by other NSI(s).”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0220] “the other management system 1204 may be requested 1943 to have the TN manager release resources previously allocated to the NSSI.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0222] “Thereupon the NSSI is de-activated 1971.”).
Furthermore, Bor Yaliniz discloses: while maintaining a second resource associated with the second slice subnet;, because Bor Yaliniz teaches that only the constituent subnet instances not used by another slice instance are de-activated, so a constituent subnet instance that another slice instance is using is left as it is: (Bor Yaliniz necessarily so, because a subnet instance that is not de-activated goes on serving the other slice instance that uses it, and a subnet instance that goes on serving traffic keeps the resources it serves that traffic with (see Bor Yaliniz, para [0343])).
Moreover, Bor Yaliniz discloses: cause the network slice to transition to the hibernation state., because Bor Yaliniz teaches the network slice instance being placed in the de-activated state at the end of the procedure, a state in which the instance provides no communication service, has had the resources of its unshared subnets released, and is kept for re-activation: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0357] “Thereupon the NSI is de-activated 2971.”; Bor Yaliniz, para [0343] “NSI de-activation includes any actions that make the NSI inactive and not providing any communication services.”).
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.
Claims 18, 19 and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor Yaliniz et al. (US 2019/0223055 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 23.502 version 16.7.0.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 16, although Bor Yaliniz teaches the trigger for de-activating the network slice instance being generated or received and including a timer alarm, a request from another entity or a service being removed from the instance: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0344]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that receiving the first trigger comprises detecting, by an AMF, that activities of a PDU session are below a first activities threshold, or receiving, from a base station, an indication that the activities of the PDU session are below the first activities threshold.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 16, wherein receiving the first trigger comprises at least one of: detecting, by an access and mobility management function (AMF), that activities of a protocol data unit (PDU) session between the CN and a user device are below a first activities threshold; or receiving, from a base station, an indication that the activities of the PDU session are below the first activities threshold. the radio access network sending the AMF a request to release the context of a user equipment, listing the PDU sessions of that user equipment, with a cause of user inactivity, that is, a report from the base station that the activity of the user equipment on its PDU sessions has stayed below the level that keeps the connection up, on which the AMF goes on to release the user plane of those sessions (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “(R)AN-initiated with cause e.g. O&M Intervention, Unspecified Failure, (R)AN (e.g. Radio) Link Failure, User Inactivity,”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the (R)AN sends an N2 UE Context Release Request (Cause, List of PDU Session ID(s) with active N3 user plane) message to the AMF.” . . . (pg. 75) “If N2 Context Release Request cause indicates the release is requested due to user inactivity or AS RAI then the AMF continues with the AN Release procedure”).
Claim 18 recites its alternatives in the form at least one of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed alternatives is satisfied. The alternative relied on is receiving, from a base station, an indication that the activities of the PDU session are below the first activities threshold, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the detecting alternative, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the user inactivity release request of TS 23.502 as the trigger on which the core network of Bor Yaliniz de-activates the network slice instance. Bor Yaliniz leaves the source of its de-activation trigger open, listing its examples without limitation, and de-activates a slice instance so that resources are not held by a slice that is not serving anyone. The user inactivity request of TS 23.502 is the standard signal by which the base station tells the core network that a user of the slice has stopped using its sessions. Using that signal as the trigger lets the core network start de-activating the subnet as soon as the sessions served through it go quiet, with the predictable result that the released resources become available to other slices sooner.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 16, although Bor Yaliniz teaches de-activating a constituent slice subnet instance of the network slice instance and releasing the resources previously allocated to it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0220], para [0343]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that the first slice subnet is a CN slice subnet, or establishing, based on the first trigger, a PDU session modification procedure between the AMF and a UPF of the CN.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 16, wherein the first slice subnet is a CN slice subnet, the method further comprising: establishing, based on the first trigger, a PDU session modification procedure between the AMF and a user plane function (UPF) of the CN. that, on the release request from the base station, the AMF invokes toward the session management function an update of the PDU session context that deactivates the user plane of the session, and the session management function in turn runs an N4 session modification with the user plane function that removes the tunnel of the session, so that the user plane resources the core network holds for the session in its user plane function, which are resources of the core network part of the slice, are modified on the strength of the trigger in a procedure that runs from the AMF through to the UPF (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, pg. 76: “the AMF invokes Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request (PDU Session ID, PDU Session Deactivation, Cause, Operation Type, User Location Information, Age of Location Information,” . . . “to indicate deactivation of user plane resources for the PDU Session” . . . “the SMF initiates an N4 Session Modification procedure indicating the need to remove Tunnel Info of AN or UPF terminating N3.”).
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 the core network of Bor Yaliniz, on the user inactivity trigger, run the user plane deactivation of TS 23.502 for the sessions of the slice, freeing the user plane function resources of the core network subnet before that subnet is de-activated. TS 23.502 already ties this procedure to the user inactivity release, and Bor Yaliniz de-activates a subnet so that the resources allocated to it are released; running the session level release first is the ordinary way of clearing the sessions off a user plane function before its resources are taken back, with the predictable result of an orderly release.
Regarding claim 29, which depends on claim 17, although Bor Yaliniz teaches the trigger for de-activating the network slice instance being generated or received and including a timer alarm, a request from another entity or a service being removed from the instance: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0344]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that receiving the first trigger comprises detecting, by an AMF, that activities of a PDU session are below a first activities threshold, or receiving, from a base station, an indication that the activities of the PDU session are below the first activities threshold.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 17, wherein receiving the first trigger comprises at least one of: detecting, by an access and mobility management function (AMF), that activities of a protocol data unit (PDU) session between the CN and a user device are below a first activities threshold; or receiving, from a base station, an indication that the activities of the PDU session are below the first activities threshold. because TS 23.502 teaches the radio access network sending the AMF a request to release the context of a user equipment, listing the PDU sessions of that user equipment, with a cause of user inactivity, that is, a report from the base station that the activity of the user equipment on its PDU sessions has stayed below the level that keeps the connection up, on which the AMF goes on to release the user plane of those sessions (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “(R)AN-initiated with cause e.g. O&M Intervention, Unspecified Failure, (R)AN (e.g. Radio) Link Failure, User Inactivity,”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the (R)AN sends an N2 UE Context Release Request (Cause, List of PDU Session ID(s) with active N3 user plane) message to the AMF.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “If N2 Context Release Request cause indicates the release is requested due to user inactivity or AS RAI then the AMF continues with the AN Release procedure”).
Claim 29 recites its alternatives in the form at least one of, so the claim is satisfied when any one of the listed alternatives is satisfied. The alternative relied on is receiving, from a base station, an indication that the activities of the PDU session are below the first activities threshold, which is the limitation mapped above. No reference is relied on as teaching the detecting alternative, and none is needed to sustain the rejection.
Thus, Bor Yaliniz and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 30, which depends on claim 17, although Bor Yaliniz teaches de-activating a constituent slice subnet instance of the network slice instance and releasing the resources previously allocated to it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0220], para [0343]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that the first slice subnet is a CN slice subnet, or establishing, based on the first trigger, a PDU session modification procedure between the AMF and a UPF of the CN.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 17, wherein the first slice subnet is a CN slice subnet, the method further comprising: establishing, based on the first trigger, a PDU session modification procedure between the AMF and a user plane function (UPF) of the CN. because TS 23.502 teaches that, on the release request from the base station, the AMF invokes toward the session management function an update of the PDU session context that deactivates the user plane of the session, and the session management function in turn runs an N4 session modification with the user plane function that removes the tunnel of the session, so that the user plane resources the core network holds for the session in its user plane function, which are resources of the core network part of the slice, are modified on the strength of the trigger in a procedure that runs from the AMF through to the UPF (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the AMF invokes Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request (PDU Session ID, PDU Session Deactivation, Cause, Operation Type, User Location Information, Age of Location Information,”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the SMF initiates an N4 Session Modification procedure indicating the need to remove Tunnel Info of AN or UPF terminating N3.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “to indicate deactivation of user plane resources for the PDU Session.”).
Consequently, Bor Yaliniz and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 31, which depends on claim 18, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 18, wherein the first slice subnet is a CN slice subnet, the method further comprising: establishing, based on the first trigger, a PDU session modification procedure between the AMF and a user plane function (UPF) of the CN., as TS 23.502 further discloses that, on the user inactivity release request, the AMF invokes toward the session management function an update of the PDU session context that deactivates the user plane of the session, and the session management function runs an N4 session modification with the user plane function that removes the tunnel of the session, so that the core network resources held for the session in the user plane function are modified in a procedure running from the AMF through to the UPF on the strength of that trigger (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the AMF invokes Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Request (PDU Session ID, PDU Session Deactivation, Cause, Operation Type, User Location Information, Age of Location Information,”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the SMF initiates an N4 Session Modification procedure indicating the need to remove Tunnel Info of AN or UPF terminating N3.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “to indicate deactivation of user plane resources for the PDU Session.”).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor Yaliniz et al. (US 2019/0223055 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 23.502 version 16.7.0 and further in view of 3GPP TS 28.531 version 16.10.0.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 19, even though Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 teaches the session management function running the session modification that deactivates the user plane resources of the session in the user plane function, and a management function that releases the resources of a de-activated slice subnet: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0220], para [0343]; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6), Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 does not explicitly disclose sending, from the SMF to the NSSF, a request to release the first resource of the UPF, or receiving, by the SMF from the NSSF, an acknowledgement of that request comprising an indication of whether the UPF is a dedicated slice UPF or a shared slice UPF.
Nevertheless, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 and further in view of TS 28.531 discloses The method of claim 19, further comprising: sending, from a session management function (SMF) of the CN to a network slice selection function (NSSF) of the CN, a request to release the first resource of the UPF; because TS 28.531 teaches a consumer function sending the function responsible for a slice subnet a request stating that the subnet instance, whose network functions include the user plane function serving the slice, is no longer needed, which is a request to release its resources (TS 28.531, clause 5.1.4, pg. 16: “receives network slice subnet related request from its authorized consumer indicating that an existing NSSI is no longer needed.”).
Furthermore, TS 28.531 discloses receiving, by the SMF from the NSSF, an acknowledgement of the request to release the first resource of the UPF, wherein the acknowledgement comprises an indication of whether the UPF is a dedicated slice UPF or a shared slice UPF. that the responsible function answering the consumer with feedback that tells it whether the subnet instance has been terminated or, because it is shared, has only been disassociated and kept, so that the answer carries whether the subnet and its network functions are dedicated to the requester or shared (TS 28.531, clause 5.1.4, “If the decision is the NSSI is not terminated (e.g., the NSSI is shared or the network slice subnet provisioning management service provider decides to keep the NSSI for later use), the network slice subnet provisioning management service provider disassociates the NSSI from its consumer and provides feedback”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the session management function of TS 23.502, which controls the user plane function and knows when the sessions of the slice have been cleared off it, send the release request of TS 28.531 for the user plane function of the core network subnet, and to have the network slice selection function of the core network, which holds the information on the slice instances and what serves them, answer it with the feedback of TS 28.531 on whether the user plane function is shared.
Bor Yaliniz de-activates only the subnet instances that other slice instances do not use, so before the user plane function of a subnet is released the core network has to learn whether the function is dedicated to the slice or shared with others; TS 28.531 supplies exactly that request and answer for a subnet that is no longer needed, and placing the request with the function that controls the user plane function and the answer with the function that keeps the slice instance information is the ordinary assignment of those roles, with the predictable result that a shared user plane function is not taken away from the slices still using it.
Therefore, Bor Yaliniz and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 20, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 and further in view of TS 28.531 discloses The method of claim 20, wherein the acknowledgement indicates that the UPF is a dedicated slice UPF, and wherein releasing the first resource comprises: releasing, by a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) of the CN, all resources of the UPF., as TS 28.531 further discloses the function responsible for the slice subnet having the orchestrator terminate the network service instance that releases the subnet, which releases all of it, and doing so only when that instance is dedicated to the subnet (TS 28.531, clause 5.1.4, “the network slice subnet provisioning management service provider may trigger request to NFVO for terminating or updating (e.g. scaling-in) the NS instance.”; TS 28.531, clause 5.1.4, “In case where the NS instance is not dedicated for the NSSI, the network slice subnet provisioning management service provider does not terminate the NS instance.”).
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 20, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 and further in view of TS 28.531 discloses The method of claim 20, wherein the acknowledgement indicates that the UPF is a shared UPF, and wherein releasing the first resource comprises: releasing, by a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) of the CN, a portion of all resources of the UPF., as TS 28.531 further discloses the function responsible for the slice subnet scaling in, rather than terminating, the network service instance that realises the subnet when that instance is not dedicated to the subnet, which gives back a portion of its resources while the rest keeps serving (TS 28.531, clause 5.1.4, “the network slice subnet provisioning management service provider may trigger request to NFVO for terminating or updating (e.g. scaling-in) the NS instance.”; TS 28.531, clause 5.1.4, “In case where the NS instance is not dedicated for the NSSI, the network slice subnet provisioning management service provider does not terminate the NS instance.”).
Claims 23, 24, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor Yaliniz et al. (US 2019/0223055 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 23.502 version 16.7.0 and further in view of 3GPP TS 23.501 version 16.7.0.
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 16, although Bor Yaliniz teaches a network slice subnet management function that manages the subnet slices and de-activates a subnet instance on a request from another entity: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0118], para [0217]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that the first slice subnet is a RAN slice subnet, or that the request comes from the AMF and indicates that usage of the first resource in a tracking area satisfies a first usage threshold.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 16, wherein the first slice subnet is a radio access network (RAN) slice subnet, the method further comprising: sending, from the AMF, to a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) of a RAN, an indication that usage of the first resource in a tracking area satisfies a first usage threshold, the AMF learning from the radio access network, in a release request whose cause is user inactivity and in the release complete message that follows, that the user equipment has stopped using the radio access network resources of its sessions and where that user equipment is located, so that the AMF holds an indication that usage of the radio access network resources of the slice in that area has fallen to the level at which they are to be released (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “(R)AN-initiated with cause e.g. O&M Intervention, Unspecified Failure, (R)AN (e.g. Radio) Link Failure, User Inactivity,”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “The (R)AN confirms the N2 Release by returning an N2 UE Context Release Complete (List of PDU Session ID(s) with active N3 user plane, User Location Information, Age of Location Information) message to the AMF.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “This procedure is used to release the logical NG-AP signalling connection for the UE between the (R)AN and the AMF and the associated N3 User Plane connections, and (R)AN signalling connection between the UE and the (R)AN and the associated (R)AN resources.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the AMF of TS 23.502, which is told by the radio access network when a user of the slice has gone inactive and where, pass that indication to the subnet management function of Bor Yaliniz for the radio access network subnet as the request on which that function de-activates the subnet in that area. Bor Yaliniz leaves open which entity sends the de-activation request and de-activates a subnet so that resources it no longer uses are released; the AMF of TS 23.502 is the core network function that receives the inactivity reports for the users of the slice together with their location, so it is the function in a position to tell the subnet management function when the radio resources of the slice in an area have gone unused, with the predictable result that the radio resources of the slice in that area are released when no one is using them.
Even though Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 teaches the AMF holding an indication that the radio access network resources of the slice in an area have gone unused and the subnet management function de-activating the subnet on it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0217], para [0222]; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6), Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 does not explicitly disclose that the RAN slice subnet is associated with the tracking area, or sending, from the AMF to a NSSF of the CN, an indication to cause the RAN slice subnet to transition to the hibernation state.
Nevertheless, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 and further in view of TS 23.501 discloses wherein the RAN slice subset is associated with the tracking area; because TS 23.501 teaches that the availability of a network slice in a tracking area rests on the slices the radio access network supports in that tracking area, so that the radio access network part of a slice is tied to the tracking areas in which the radio access network supports it (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.8, “It is derived by using the S-NSSAIs supported per TA in 5G-AN, the S-NSSAIs supported in the AMF and operator policies per TA in the NSSF.”).
Furthermore, TS 23.501 discloses sending, from the AMF to a network slice selection function (NSSF) of the CN, an indication to cause the RAN slice subset to transition to the hibernation state. because TS 23.501 teaches the AMF providing and updating the network slice selection function with the slices supported per tracking area, which is the information on which the selection function decides whether a slice can serve a user in a tracking area, so that an update withdrawing the radio access network support of the slice in a tracking area is what puts that part of the slice out of service there (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.8, “One or all AMF per AMF Set provides and updates the NSSF with the S-NSSAIs support per TA.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the AMF, when the radio access network subnet of the slice is de-activated in a tracking area, update the network slice selection function of TS 23.501 with that change in the slice support of the tracking area. TS 23.501 has the network slice selection function pick the slice instances that can serve a user in the tracking area the user is in, from the per tracking area support the AMF reports to it, and has the AMF update that report whenever the support changes; a slice whose radio access network subnet has been put to sleep in an area cannot serve users there until it is restored, so reporting the change is the ordinary way of keeping the selection function from sending users to it, with the predictable result that users in that area are placed on slices that are actually serving there.
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 23, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 23, further comprising: sending, from the AMF to a base station, an indication of release of the first resource; and receiving, by the AMF and from the base station, an acknowledgement of the indication of release of the first resource., as TS 23.502 further discloses the AMF sending the radio access network a command to release the context of the user equipment, on which the radio access network releases the radio connection and the radio access network resources of that user equipment and confirms the release to the AMF with a release complete message (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “the AMF sends an N2 UE Context Release Command (Cause) to the (R)AN.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “The (R)AN confirms the N2 Release by returning an N2 UE Context Release Complete (List of PDU Session ID(s) with active N3 user plane, User Location Information, Age of Location Information) message to the AMF.”).
Regarding claim 32, which depends on claim 17, although Bor Yaliniz teaches a network slice subnet management function that manages the subnet slices and de-activates a subnet instance on a request from another entity: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0118], para [0217]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that the first slice subnet is a RAN slice subnet, or that the request comes from the AMF and indicates that usage of the first resource in a tracking area satisfies a first usage threshold.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 17, wherein the first slice subnet is a radio access network (RAN) slice subnet, the method further comprising: sending, from the AMF to a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) of a RAN, an indication that usage of the first resource in a tracking area satisfies a first usage threshold, because TS 23.502 teaches the AMF learning from the radio access network, in a release request whose cause is user inactivity and in the release complete message that follows, that the user equipment has stopped using the radio access network resources of its sessions and where that user equipment is located, so that the AMF holds an indication that usage of the radio access network resources of the slice in that area has fallen to the level at which they are to be released (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “(R)AN-initiated with cause e.g. O&M Intervention, Unspecified Failure, (R)AN (e.g. Radio) Link Failure, User Inactivity,”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “The (R)AN confirms the N2 Release by returning an N2 UE Context Release Complete (List of PDU Session ID(s) with active N3 user plane, User Location Information, Age of Location Information) message to the AMF.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “This procedure is used to release the logical NG-AP signalling connection for the UE between the (R)AN and the AMF and the associated N3 User Plane connections, and (R)AN signalling connection between the UE and the (R)AN and the associated (R)AN resources.”).
Therefore, Bor Yaliniz and TS 23.502 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Even though Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 teaches the AMF holding an indication that the radio access network resources of the slice in an area have gone unused and the subnet management function de-activating the subnet on it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0217], para [0222]; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6), Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 does not explicitly disclose that the RAN slice subnet is associated with the tracking area, or sending, from the AMF to a NSSF of the CN, an indication to cause the RAN slice subnet to transition to the hibernation state.
Nevertheless, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 and further in view of TS 23.501 discloses wherein the RAN slice subset is associated with the tracking area; because TS 23.501 teaches that the availability of a network slice in a tracking area rests on the slices the radio access network supports in that tracking area, so that the radio access network part of a slice is tied to the tracking areas in which the radio access network supports it (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.8, “It is derived by using the S-NSSAIs supported per TA in 5G-AN, the S-NSSAIs supported in the AMF and operator policies per TA in the NSSF.”).
Moreover, TS 23.501 discloses sending, from the AMF to a network slice selection function (NSSF) of the CN, an indication to cause the RAN slice subset to transition to the hibernation state. because TS 23.501 teaches the AMF providing and updating the network slice selection function with the slices supported per tracking area, which is the information on which the selection function decides whether a slice can serve a user in a tracking area, so that an update withdrawing the radio access network support of the slice in a tracking area is what puts that part of the slice out of service there (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.8, “One or all AMF per AMF Set provides and updates the NSSF with the S-NSSAIs support per TA.”).
Accordingly, Bor Yaliniz, TS 23.502 and TS 23.501 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 33, which depends on claim 18, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 discloses The method of claim 18, wherein the first slice subnet is a radio access network (RAN) slice subnet, the method further comprising: sending, from the AMF to a network slice subnet management function (NSSMF) of a RAN, an indication that usage of the first resource in a tracking area satisfies a first usage threshold,, as TS 23.502 further discloses the AMF learning from the radio access network, in the user inactivity release request and in the release complete message that follows, that the user equipment has stopped using the radio access network resources of its sessions and where that user equipment is located, so that the AMF holds an indication that usage of the radio access network resources of the slice in that area has fallen to the level at which they are to be released (TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “The (R)AN confirms the N2 Release by returning an N2 UE Context Release Complete (List of PDU Session ID(s) with active N3 user plane, User Location Information, Age of Location Information) message to the AMF.”; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6, “This procedure is used to release the logical NG-AP signalling connection for the UE between the (R)AN and the AMF and the associated N3 User Plane connections, and (R)AN signalling connection between the UE and the (R)AN and the associated (R)AN resources.”).
Even though Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 teaches the AMF holding an indication that the radio access network resources of the slice in an area have gone unused and the subnet management function de-activating the subnet on it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0217], para [0222]; TS 23.502, clause 4.2.6), Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 does not explicitly disclose that the RAN slice subnet is associated with the tracking area, or sending, from the AMF to a NSSF of the CN, an indication to cause the RAN slice subnet to transition to the hibernation state.
Yet, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 23.502 and further in view of TS 23.501 discloses wherein the RAN slice subset is associated with the tracking area; because TS 23.501 teaches that the availability of a network slice in a tracking area rests on the slices the radio access network supports in that tracking area, so that the radio access network part of a slice is tied to the tracking areas in which the radio access network supports it (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.8, “It is derived by using the S-NSSAIs supported per TA in 5G-AN, the S-NSSAIs supported in the AMF and operator policies per TA in the NSSF.”).
In addition, TS 23.501 discloses sending, from the AMF to a network slice selection function (NSSF) of the CN, an indication to cause the RAN slice subset to transition to the hibernation state. because TS 23.501 teaches the AMF providing and updating the network slice selection function with the slices supported per tracking area, which is the information on which the selection function decides whether a slice can serve a user in a tracking area, so that an update withdrawing the radio access network support of the slice in a tracking area is what puts that part of the slice out of service there (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.8, “One or all AMF per AMF Set provides and updates the NSSF with the S-NSSAIs support per TA.”).
For these reasons, Bor Yaliniz, TS 23.502 and TS 23.501 are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor Yaliniz et al. (US 2019/0223055 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 28.531 version 16.10.0 and further in view of 3GPP TS 23.501 version 16.7.0.
Regarding claim 26, which depends on claim 16, although Bor Yaliniz teaches keeping the de-activated network slice instance and re-activating it when a new communication service request is received: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose determining a priority for a service associated with the network slice, or storing the priority for the service at the NSSF.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 28.531 discloses The method of claim 16, further comprising: determining a priority for a service associated with the network slice; because TS 28.531 teaches the priority of a network slice being part of the information describing the slice, and the management system assigning a priority to the slice subnet instances deployed to support a communication service whose priority the operator has set (TS 28.531, clause 4.3, “Resource model information, which describes the static parameters and functional components of network slice, includes service profile, network slice type (e.g. eMBB), additional system feature (e.g. multicast, Edge Computing), priority.”; TS 28.531, clause 5.1.23, “Network slice subnet instance is deployed to support a communication service with priority, set by the operator.”; TS 28.531, clause 5.1.23, “To assign priority on existing network slice subnet instance(s).”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to give the network slice instance of Bor Yaliniz, and the service it carries, the priority that TS 28.531 assigns to slices and their subnets. Bor Yaliniz de-activates slice instances and re-activates them when service requests come in, and when several slices contend for the same resources the network has to know which comes first; TS 28.531 records a priority for the slice and its subnets for exactly that purpose, with the predictable result that a higher priority service is served ahead of a lower one.
Even though Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 28.531 teaches a priority determined for the service the network slice supports and recorded in the management system: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0343]; TS 28.531, clause 4.3, clause 5.1.23), Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 28.531 does not explicitly disclose storing the priority for the service at the NSSF.
Nevertheless, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 28.531 and further in view of TS 23.501 discloses storing the priority for the service at the NSSF. because TS 23.501 teaches the network slice selection function holding, locally, information about the network slice instances, including their load level, and using that stored information to select the slice instance that serves a user, so that information about a slice instance that bears on how it is to be served is kept at the network slice selection function (TS 23.501, clause 5.15.5.2.1, “Based on this information, local configuration, and other locally available information including RAN capabilities in the current Tracking Area for the UE or load level information for a Network Slice instance provided by the NWDAF, the NSSF does the following:”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store the priority of the service at the network slice selection function of TS 23.501. That function already keeps, locally, the per slice instance information it needs to decide which slice instance serves a user, and the priority of the service a slice carries is information of that kind; keeping it where the other slice instance information is kept puts it in the hands of the function that decides between slices, with the predictable result that the priority is at hand when slices are selected or restored.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor Yaliniz et al. (US 2019/0223055 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 28.531 version 16.10.0.
Regarding claim 28, which depends on claim 27, although Bor Yaliniz teaches restoring the resources of the de-activated subnet when the network slice instance is activated again, the management functions arranging and obtaining the resources used to activate it: (Bor Yaliniz, para [0212], para [0321], para [0323]), Bor Yaliniz does not explicitly disclose that restoring the first resource is based on a priority of a service associated with the network slice.
However, Bor Yaliniz in view of TS 28.531 discloses The method of claim 27, wherein restoring the first resource is based on a priority of a service associated with the network slice. because TS 28.531 teaches the slice subnet supporting a communication service being deployed with the priority the operator set for that service, and that priority being handed to the orchestrator that instantiates the network services releasing the subnet, so that the orchestrator’s allocation of resources to the subnet is governed by the priority of the service the subnet supports (TS 28.531, clause 5.1.23, “Network slice subnet instance is deployed to support a communication service with priority, set by the operator.”; TS 28.531, clause 5.1.24, “ETSI NFV MANO is informed about NS priority.”; TS 28.531, clause 5.1.24, pg. 34: “Network service priority is identified by NFVO to support the 3GPP sub-network.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the resources of the de-activated subnet of Bor Yaliniz restored according to the priority TS 28.531 gives the service the slice supports. Bor Yaliniz arranges resources for a slice instance when it is activated again, and the resources it released may meanwhile have been taken up by other slices; TS 28.531 gives the orchestrator that allocates those resources the priority of the service so that its allocation follows the priority, with the predictable result that a higher priority service gets its resources back ahead of a lower priority one.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights