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 12/09/2024, 12/23/2025 and 09/11/2026 are considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that claims 16 and 24 are to be amended as follows:
16. A method performed by a central Network Slice Admission Control Function, NSACF, the method comprising:
receiving from a local NSACF, a request to update the number of registered UEs for a network slice; and
sending a response to the local NSACF, wherein:
o the response indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is either accepted or rejected; and
o the response comprises an instruction defining a threshold to be applied by the local NSACF for future requests to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice for new UE registrations to the network slice.
24. A network node for implementing a central Network Slice Admission Control Function, NSACF, the network node comprising processing circuitry configured to cause the network node to:
receive from a local NSACF, a request to update the number of registered UEs for a network slice; and
send a response to the local NSACF, wherein:
o the response indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is either accepted or rejected; and
o the response comprises an instruction defining a threshold to be applied by the local NSACF for future requests to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice for new UE registrations to the network slice.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 12-13, 16, 18-19, 21-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kiss et al. (US 2025/0310860).
Regarding claim 8, Kiss shows a method (Figures 3-4 shows a method performed in part by the local NSACF 306/307.) performed by a local Network Slice Admission Control Function, NSACF, the method comprising:
receiving from a network function a first request to update a number of registered User Equipments, UEs, for a network slice in association with a registration request for a particular UE for the network slice (Figures 3-4; Par. 0045-0046; the AMF 205 may receive a trigger to perform a number of UEs per network slice availability check and update. For example, a UE may want to access a network slice and the AMF 205 is triggered to perform the check to determine if the UE may access the desired network slice. In 315, the AMF 205 sends an Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request to the first local NSACF 306 to determine the network slice availability.);
in response to determining that a maximum number of registered UEs for the network slice is reached (Par. 0047; the first local NSACF 306 performs the network slice availability check. In this example, it may be considered that the first local NSACF 306 is out of the local quota for this network slice.), sending a second request to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice to a central NSACF (Figures 3-4; Par. 0048, 0054; sending a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request from the first local NSACF 306 to the primary NSACF 305 with information indicating the first local NSACF 306 has reached the local quota limit. The request is to update local quota for a particular slice.);
receiving a response from the central NSACF (Figures 3-4; receiving the Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365.), wherein:
the response indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is either accepted or rejected (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response may indicate whether the request is accepted or rejected.); and
the response comprises an instruction defining a threshold to be applied by the local NSACF for future requests to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice for new UE registrations to the network slice (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054; When the primary NSACF 305 has received the update response indicating the one or more second local NSACFs 307 have updated the corresponding local quota, in 360, the primary NSACF may increase the local quota for the first local NSACF 306 by the corresponding number that has been deallocated from the one or more second local NSACFs 307. This increase in the local quota may be indicated by the primary NSACF 305 to the first local NSACF 306 using a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365 that includes information updating the local quota. The first local NSACF 306 may then provide a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 370 to the AMF 205 indicating that the local quota has been updated. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.);
rejecting or accepting admission of the particular UE for the particular network slice in accordance with the response received from the central NSACF (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; The first local NSACF 306 may then provide a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 370 to the AMF 205 indicating that the local quota has been updated. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI. Otherwise, in 460, the first local NSACF 306 will send a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response to the AMF 205 indicating the maximum number of UEs registered with the network slice has been reached. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is not permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.); and
applying the instruction from the central NSACF when determining whether the local NSACF can admit new UE registrations to the network slice in future requests to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice at the local NSACF (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; The first local NSACF 306 may then provide a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 370 to the AMF 205 indicating that the local quota has been updated. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.).
Regarding claim 10, Kiss shows wherein the particular UE is a UE for which the registration request is a new registration request (Par. 0040; the AMF 205 may be triggered to send a request to the NSACF 225 for a maximum number of UEs per network slice admission control when the UE's registration status for a network slice subject to NSAC may change.), and the response from the central NSACF indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is rejected (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; in 460, the first local NSACF 306 will send a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response to the AMF 205 indicating the maximum number of UEs registered with the network slice has been reached. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is not permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.).
Regarding claim 12, Kiss shows wherein the threshold defined by the instructions is an adjusted maximum number of registered UEs for the network slice that can be admitted by the local NSACF (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054; When the primary NSACF 305 has received the update response indicating the one or more second local NSACFs 307 have updated the corresponding local quota, in 360, the primary NSACF may increase the local quota for the first local NSACF 306 by the corresponding number that has been deallocated from the one or more second local NSACFs 307. This increase in the local quota may be indicated by the primary NSACF 305 to the first local NSACF 306 using a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365 that includes information updating the local quota. The first local NSACF 306 may then provide a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 370 to the AMF 205 indicating that the local quota has been updated. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.).
Regarding claim 13, Kiss shows wherein the instruction comprises an instruction to not admit new UE registrations until the number of registered UEs for the network slice at the local NSACF is less than a defined percentage of the threshold (Figures 3-4; Par. 0049, 0054, 0057; in 460, the first local NSACF 306 will send a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response to the AMF 205 indicating the maximum number of UEs registered with the network slice has been reached. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is not permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI. The primary NSACF allocated 100% of the available global quota. In some exemplary embodiments, the primary NSACF 305 may allocate less than 100% of the global quota and reserve some of the global quota for reallocation without having to deallocate any local quota from the second NSACFs 307. However, in this example, it may be considered that 100% of the available global quota has been allocated to the local NSACFs 306, 307 and any dynamic reallocation scheme will include deallocating local quota from one or more of the second local NSACFs 307.).
Regarding claim 16, Kiss shows a method (Figures 3-4 shows a method performed in part by the primary NSACF 305.) performed by a central Network Slice Admission Control Function, NSACF, the method comprising:
receiving, from a local NSACF, a request to update the number of registered UEs for a network slice (Figures 3-4; Par. 0048, 0054; receiving a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request, from the first local NSACF 306, at the primary NSACF 305 with information indicating the first local NSACF 306 has reached the local quota limit. The request is to update local quota for a particular slice.);
sending a response to the local NSACF (Figures 3-4; sending Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365.), wherein:
the response indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is either accepted or rejected (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response may indicate whether the request is accepted or rejected.); and
the response comprises an instruction defining a threshold to be applied by the local NSACF for future requests to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice for new UE registrations to the network slice (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054; When the primary NSACF 305 has received the update response indicating the one or more second local NSACFs 307 have updated the corresponding local quota, in 360, the primary NSACF may increase the local quota for the first local NSACF 306 by the corresponding number that has been deallocated from the one or more second local NSACFs 307. This increase in the local quota may be indicated by the primary NSACF 305 to the first local NSACF 306 using a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365 that includes information updating the local quota. The first local NSACF 306 may then provide a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 370 to the AMF 205 indicating that the local quota has been updated. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.).
Regarding claim 18, Kiss shows keeping a sufficient reserve of quota for handling admission of UEs moving between service areas (Figure 3; Par. 0049; the primary NSACF 305 may allocate less than 100% of the global quota and reserve some of the global quota for reallocation without having to deallocate any local quota from the second NSACFs 307.).
Regarding claims 19, 21 and 22, these claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claims 10, 12 and 13, respectively.
Regarding claim 24, Kiss shows a network node for implementing a central Network Slice Admission Control Function, NSACF (Figures 3-4 shows a method performed in part by the primary NSACF 305.), the network node comprising processing circuitry (Par. 0102; embodied as a program containing lines of code stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that, when compiled, may be executed on a processor or microprocessor.) configured to cause the network node to:
receive, from a local NSACF, a request to update the number of registered UEs for a network slice (Figures 3-4; Par. 0048, 0054; receiving a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request, from the first local NSACF 306, at the primary NSACF 305 with information indicating the first local NSACF 306 has reached the local quota limit. The request is to update local quota for a particular slice.);
send a response to the local NSACF (Figures 3-4; sending Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365.), wherein:
the response indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is either accepted or rejected (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response may indicate whether the request is accepted or rejected.); and
the response comprises an instruction defining a threshold to be applied by the local NSACF for future requests to update the number of registered UEs for the network slice for new UE registrations to the network slice (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054; When the primary NSACF 305 has received the update response indicating the one or more second local NSACFs 307 have updated the corresponding local quota, in 360, the primary NSACF may increase the local quota for the first local NSACF 306 by the corresponding number that has been deallocated from the one or more second local NSACFs 307. This increase in the local quota may be indicated by the primary NSACF 305 to the first local NSACF 306 using a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 365 that includes information updating the local quota. The first local NSACF 306 may then provide a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response 370 to the AMF 205 indicating that the local quota has been updated. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.).
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiss in view of Velev (US 2024/0397418).
Regarding claim 9, Kiss shows all of the elements including the first request or the second request include an indication that the registration request (Par. 0040; the AMF 205 may be triggered to send a request to the NSACF 225 for a maximum number of UEs per network slice admission control when the UE's registration status for a network slice subject to NSAC may change.). Kiss does not specifically show an indication that the registration request is related to a mobility event of the UE moving from an old service area.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Velev. Specifically, Velev shows an indication that the registration request is related to a mobility event of the UE moving from an old service area (Par. 0063, 0079, 0084-0085; When the type of UE registration indicates emergency, or UE subscription data indicates that the UE 102 is allowed to use a priority service (e.g., MPS or MCS) over a particular slice, the AMF 402 or the SMF+PGW-C 406, 408 decides to include the service type parameter in the update request to the NSACF 416, 418 to increase the number of UEs.).
In view of the above, having the system of Kiss, then given the well-established teaching of Velev, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kiss as taught by Velev, in order to provide motivation to differentiate the importance of service in the network to avoid rejection of the service and allow the counting of the UEs (or PDU sessions) in the NSACF (Par. 0056 of Velev).
Regarding claim 11, Kiss shows all of the elements including the response from the central NSACF indicates that admission of the particular UE to the network slice is accepted (Figures 3-4; Par. 0054, 0057; in 460, the first local NSACF 306 will send a Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response to the AMF 205 indicating the maximum number of UEs registered with the network slice has been reached. This will signal to the AMF 205 that the UE that is not permitted to access the requested S-NSSAI.).
Kiss does not specifically show wherein the particular UE is a UE for which the registration request is made in association with a mobility event for the particular UE.
However, the above-mentioned claim limitations are well-established in the art as evidenced by Velev. Specifically, Velev shows wherein the particular UE is a UE for which the registration request is made in association with a mobility event for the particular UE (Par. 0063, 0079, 0084-0085; When the type of UE registration indicates emergency, or UE subscription data indicates that the UE 102 is allowed to use a priority service (e.g., MPS or MCS) over a particular slice, the AMF 402 or the SMF+PGW-C 406, 408 decides to include the service type parameter in the update request to the NSACF 416, 418 to increase the number of UEs.).
In view of the above, having the system of Kiss, then given the well-established teaching of Velev, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kiss as taught by Velev, in order to provide motivation to differentiate the importance of service in the network to avoid rejection of the service and allow the counting of the UEs (or PDU sessions) in the NSACF (Par. 0056 of Velev).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, these claims are rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claims 9 and 11, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250234320 A1 NETWORK SLICE ADMISSION CONTROL FUNCTION (NSACF) TRIGGERED UE DEREGISTRATION
US 20250142449 A1 CENTRALIZED COUNTING IN MULTI SERVICE AREAS
US 20240406854 A1 APPARATUSES, METHODS, AND SYSTEMS FOR NETWORK SLICE ADMISSION CONTROL AND 5GC-EPC INTERWORKING
US 20240373388 A1 APPLICATION INTERACTION FOR NETWORK SLICING
US 20240349218 A1 REGISTRATION TO A NETWORK SLICE SUBJECT TO ADMISSION CONTROL
US 20240224169 A1 METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR HANDLING NETWORK SLICE ADMISSION CONTROL FOR UE
US 20240224159 A1 METHOD FOR PER ACCESS TYPE NETWORK SLICE ADMISSION CONTROL
US 20240147235 A1 NETWORK SLICE ADMISSION CONTROL
US 20240137889 A1 ADMISSION CONTROL BASED ON REGISTERED USER EQUIPMENTS
US 20240073802 A1 REPORTING A NETWORK SLICE PARAMETER FOR ADMISSION CONTROL
US 20240031930 A1 NETWORK SLICE ADMISSION CONTROL METHOD AND APPARATUS
US 20230397146 A1 NON-HOMOGENEOUS NETWORK SLICE
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REDENTOR M PASIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9745. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 5am-245pm.
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, Un Cho can be reached at (571)272-7919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/REDENTOR PASIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights