DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 18/891,000 filed on September 20th, 2024.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 09/20/2024, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1, 2 – 9, 11 – 17, and 19 – 20 are rejected.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are objected to.
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 09/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,127,061 in view of Ninglekhu et al. [US 20230052699 A1].
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 18, the Patent discloses as set forth below:
Instant Application – 18/891,000
US 12,127,061 B2
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
executing, by an end device, a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency;
determining, by the end device, that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session;
selecting, by the end device, a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations; and
re-establishing, by the end device, the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the end device, a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause data indicating to change to the second network slice.
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
establishing, by an end device, a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency;
determining, by the end device, that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session;
selecting, by the end device, a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include radio frequency criteria; …and
re-establishing, by the end device, the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
…transmitting, by the end device, a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause information indicating to change a current network slice to the second network slice;…
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is triggered by a cell reselection procedure.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is triggered by a cell reselection procedure.
Claim 9:
A device comprising:
a processor configured to:
execute a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency;
determine that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session;
select a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations; and
re-establish the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
Claim 10:
The device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to:
transmit a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause data indicating to change to the second network slice.
Claim 9:
A device comprising:
a processor configured to:
establish a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency;
determine that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session;
select a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include radio frequency criteria; …and
re-establish the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
…transmit a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause information indicating to change a current network slice to the second network slice;…
Claim 12:
The device of claim 9, wherein the device is triggered to determine based on a cell reselection procedure.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is triggered by a cell reselection procedure.
Claim 17:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor of a device, wherein the instructions are configured to:
establish a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency;
determine that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session;
select a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations; and
re-establish the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
Claim 18:
The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions comprise further instructions configured to:
transmit a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause data indicating to change to the second network slice.
Claim 17:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor of a device, wherein the instructions are configured to:
establish a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency;
determine that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session;
select a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include radio frequency criteria; …and
re-establish the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
…transmit a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause information indicating to change a current network slice to the second network slice;…
Regarding claim 1, in view of the above, it is clear that the conflicting claims include similar features of an end device executing or establishing a first PDU session via a first network slice and a first radio frequency; the end device then determined that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session; therefore it selects a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies; and the end device reestablishes the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency.
Although, Patent 12,127,061 discloses that the route selection policies include radio frequency criteria, Patent 12,127,061 fails to explicitly disclose that the route selection policies include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations.
Referring to the invention of Ninglekhu, Ninglekhu teaches that “a UE may need to be camped on a proper PLMN for which, frequency bands and corresponding slices accessible through those bands are configured so that UEs could have access. Therefore, UE route selection policy may be enhanced to indicate a relation among the PLMN where UE is camped (i.e., the location of the UE), the slice(s) that UE is able to access (i.e., the network slices) and the operating frequency band (i.e., the radio frequencies) that UE needs to use to reach the network slice” (Ninglekhu: ¶ 169, ¶ 234).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the route selection policy correlations teachings of Ninglekhu into Patent 12,127,061, in order to improve connectivity, reduce interference and achieve higher quality of service.
Regarding independent claims 9 and 17, both claims, similar in claim limitations, are respectively the apparatus and non-transitory computer readable medium claims of the method claim 1. Therefore, they are also rejected as independent claim 1 above.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, 11 – 17, and 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choe et al. [US 20230247685 A1] hereinafter Choe, and further in view of Ninglekhu et al. [US 20230052699 A1] hereinafter Ninglekhu.
Regarding claim 1, Choe teaches a method comprising:
executing, by an end device (Choe: Fig. 1, ¶ 57; UE/wireless device 100), a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 271; wherein in step 1303, a wireless device may establish a PDU session for a specific service, using at least one network slice) and a first radio frequency (Choe: Fig, 13, ¶ 241/272; wherein in step 1304, a wireless device may determine one or more frequencies that support the at least one network slice, used by the PDU session);
determining, by the end device , that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 273; wherein the UE/wireless device “may perform relaxed measurement for the frequency which does not support the at least one network slice used by the PDU session”);
selecting, by the end device, a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on correlations between radio frequencies, and network slices (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274, ¶ 278; wherein in step 1305, a wireless device may perform a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies. For example, if a first frequency support one network slice used by the PDU session and a second frequency support two network slices used by the PDU session, the wireless device may select a cell on the second frequency); and
re-establishing, by the end device, the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274 - 290; wherein in step 1305, a wireless device may perform a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies, and the wireless device may assign a highest priority to a specific frequency that supports the at least network slice used by the PDU session. This reselection is using a new network slice and new frequency).
Choe teaches policy enforcement between slices but does not explicitly disclose selecting, by the end device, a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations.
Referring to the invention of Ninglekhu, Ninglekhu teaches using route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations (Ninglekhu: ¶ 169, ¶ 234; wherein a UE may need to be camped on a proper PLMN for which, frequency bands and corresponding slices accessible through those bands are configured so that UEs could have access. Therefore, UE route selection policy may be enhanced to indicate a relation among the PLMN where UE is camped (i.e., the location of the UE), the slice(s) that UE is able to access (i.e., the network slices) and the operating frequency band (i.e., the radio frequencies) that UE needs to use to reach the network slice (i.e., conditions used to make sure the device uses the correct frequencies for a network slice connection)).
Thus, in view of such teaching by Ninglekhu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the invention of Choe further comprising the teaching of Ninglekhu in order to steer a device to the proper network slice and frequency, especially with regards to the location of the device (Ninglekhu: ¶ 233).
Regarding Claim 3, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the locations include at least one of cell identifiers, access device identifiers, tracking areas, or routing areas (Ninglekhu: ¶ 11, ¶ 23, ¶ 169, ¶ 234; wherein a way to avoid the potential problem of a UE not being “permitted to access certain slices simultaneously, and that certain slices might only be available to the UE only in certain locations, e.g., in geographic regions and/or tracking areas”, “a UE may receive a list of Tracking Areas/Registration Areas (TA/RA) where all the slices in the UE's Allowed NSSAI are available during a successful UE registration procedure. Since a UE may be a mobile device, it may be appropriate for a UE to have the knowledge of such TA/RA where UE can be gracefully handed over”. (Therefore, the locations include tracking areas)).
Regarding Claim 4, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the correlations further include one or more of time periods or deployment modes (Choe: ¶ 279 – 280, ¶ 378, ¶ 391; wherein the wireless device may receive a time information informing that the at least one network slice used by the PDU session is unavailable for a certain time period. The wireless device may suspend the cell selection procedure and/or the cell reselection procedure for the certain time period. (Therefore, the correlations include time periods)).
Regarding Claim 5, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining is triggered by a cell reselection procedure (Choe: ¶ 194; wherein when camped on a cell, the UE shall regularly search for a better cell according to the cell reselection criteria. If a better cell is found, that cell is selected. The change of cell may imply a change of RAT. (Therefore, the determining that the first radio frequency does not support the first PDU is triggered by a regular search for a better cell, i.e., a cell reselection procedure)).
Regarding Claim 6, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the re-establishing comprises:
transmitting, by the end device, a PDU session establishment request that includes identifiers of the first and second network slices and a context identifier, which identifies context information pertaining to the first PDU session via the first network slice (Choe: ¶ 156 – 159; wherein slice awareness in NG-RAN is introduced at PDU session level, by indicating the S-NSSAI corresponding to the PDU Session, in all signaling containing PDU session resource information… and prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested. (Therefore, the end device will provide the context information required to be able to establish the first PDU session via the network slices it requests access to)).
Regarding Claim 7, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the correlations further include one or more of application identifiers or data indicating radio access technologies (RATs) (Ninglekhu: ¶ 185, ¶ 233; wherein a UE may receive Allowed NSSAI and OFBs for each S-NSSAIs. Alternatively, or additionally, URSP rules may be enhanced to steer the UE towards a proper S-NSSAI Frequency Band combination. With the Registration Accept message, the RAN node is also provided with several important pieces of information such as RFSP index, RAT restrictions, Forbidden Area, Service Area Restrictions, Core Network type restriction and Closed Access Group information. (Therefore, URSP correlations further include data indicating RATs)).
Regarding Claim 8, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second network slice includes core devices of the first network slice (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274 – 290; wherein in step S1305, a wireless device may perform a cell selection procedure and/or a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies… and in the cell selection procedure and/or the cell reselection procedure, the wireless device may assign a highest priority to a specific frequency that support the at least one network slice used by the PDU session. Therefore, the wireless device could select or reselect a cell on the specific frequency that supports the at least one network slice used by the PDU session. (Therefore, the wireless device will perform the cell reselection procedure using the same core devices (i.e., the wireless devices 100 and 200 as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) for the second network slice as was used for the first network slice)).
Regarding Claim 9, Choe teaches a device (Choe: Fig. 1, ¶ 57, Fig. 5, ¶ 367; UE/wireless device 100) comprising:
a processor (Choe: Fig. 5, ¶ 367; processor 102) configured to:
execute a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 271; wherein in step 1303, a wireless device may establish a PDU session for a specific service, using at least one network slice) and a first radio frequency (Choe: Fig, 13, ¶ 241/272; wherein in step 1304, a wireless device may determine one or more frequencies that support the at least one network slice, used by the PDU session);
determine that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 273; wherein the UE/wireless device “may perform relaxed measurement for the frequency which does not support the at least one network slice used by the PDU session”);
select a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies and network slices (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274, ¶ 278; wherein in step 1305, a wireless device may perform a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies. For example, if a first frequency support one network slice used by the PDU session and a second frequency support two network slices used by the PDU session, the wireless device may select a cell on the second frequency); and
re-establish the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274 - 290; wherein in step 1305, a wireless device may perform a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies, and the wireless device may assign a highest priority to a specific frequency that supports the at least network slice used by the PDU session. This reselection is using a new network slice and new frequency).
Choe teaches policy enforcement between slices but does not explicitly disclose selecting, by the end device, a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations.
Referring to the invention of Ninglekhu, Ninglekhu teaches using route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations (Ninglekhu: ¶ 169, ¶ 234; wherein a UE may need to be camped on a proper PLMN for which, frequency bands and corresponding slices accessible through those bands are configured so that UEs could have access. Therefore, UE route selection policy may be enhanced to indicate a relation among the PLMN where UE is camped (i.e., the location of the UE), the slice(s) that UE is able to access (i.e., the network slices) and the operating frequency band (i.e., the radio frequencies) that UE needs to use to reach the network slice (i.e., conditions used to make sure the device uses the correct frequencies for a network slice connection)).
Thus, in view of such teaching by Ninglekhu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the invention of Choe further comprising the teaching of Ninglekhu in order to steer a device to the proper network slice and frequency, especially with regards to the location of the device (Ninglekhu: ¶ 233).
Regarding Claim 11, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the locations include at least one of cell identifiers, access device identifiers, tracking areas, or routing areas (Ninglekhu: ¶ 11, ¶ 23, ¶ 169, ¶ 234; wherein a way to avoid the potential problem of a UE not being “permitted to access certain slices simultaneously, and that certain slices might only be available to the UE only in certain locations, e.g., in geographic regions and/or tracking areas”, “a UE may receive a list of Tracking Areas/Registration Areas (TA/RA) where all the slices in the UE's Allowed NSSAI are available during a successful UE registration procedure. Since a UE may be a mobile device, it may be appropriate for a UE to have the knowledge of such TA/RA where UE can be gracefully handed over”. (Therefore, the locations include tracking areas)).
Regarding Claim 12, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the device is triggered to determine based on a cell reselection procedure (Choe: ¶ 194; wherein when camped on a cell, the UE shall regularly search for a better cell according to the cell reselection criteria. If a better cell is found, that cell is selected. The change of cell may imply a change of RAT. (Therefore, the determining that the first radio frequency does not support the first PDU is triggered by a regular search for a better cell, i.e., a cell reselection procedure)).
Regarding Claim 13, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the correlations further include one or more of time periods or deployment modes (Choe: ¶ 279 – 280, ¶ 378, ¶ 391; wherein the wireless device may receive a time information informing that the at least one network slice used by the PDU session is unavailable for a certain time period. The wireless device may suspend the cell selection procedure and/or the cell reselection procedure for the certain time period. (Therefore, the correlations include time periods)).
Regarding Claim 14, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the device of claim 9, wherein, when re-establishing, the processor is further configured to:
transmit a PDU session establishment request that includes identifiers of the first and second network slices and a context identifier, which identifies context information pertaining to the first PDU session via the first network slice (Choe: ¶ 156 – 159; wherein slice awareness in NG-RAN is introduced at PDU session level, by indicating the S-NSSAI corresponding to the PDU Session, in all signaling containing PDU session resource information… and prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested. (Therefore, the end device will provide the context information required to be able to establish the first PDU session via the network slices it requests access to)).
Regarding Claim 15, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the correlations further include one or more of application identifiers or data indicating radio access technologies (RATs) (Ninglekhu: ¶ 185, ¶ 233; wherein a UE may receive Allowed NSSAI and OFBs for each S-NSSAIs. Alternatively, or additionally, URSP rules may be enhanced to steer the UE towards a proper S-NSSAI Frequency Band combination. With the Registration Accept message, the RAN node is also provided with several important pieces of information such as RFSP index, RAT restrictions, Forbidden Area, Service Area Restrictions, Core Network type restriction and Closed Access Group information. (Therefore, URSP correlations further include data indicating RATs)).
Regarding Claim 16, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the device of claim 9, wherein the second network slice includes core devices of the first network slice (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274 – 290; wherein in step S1305, a wireless device may perform a cell selection procedure and/or a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies… and in the cell selection procedure and/or the cell reselection procedure, the wireless device may assign a highest priority to a specific frequency that support the at least one network slice used by the PDU session. Therefore, the wireless device could select or reselect a cell on the specific frequency that supports the at least one network slice used by the PDU session. (Therefore, the wireless device will perform the cell reselection procedure using the same core devices (i.e., the wireless devices 100 and 200 as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) for the second network slice as was used for the first network slice)).
Regarding Claim 17, Choe teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Choe: ¶ 397 and ¶ 400) storing instructions executable by a processor of a device (Choe: Fig. 1, ¶ 57, Fig. 5, ¶ 367; in view of processor 102 of UE/wireless device 100), wherein the instructions are configured to:
establish a first protocol data unit (PDU) session via a first network slice (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 271; wherein in step 1303, a wireless device may establish a PDU session for a specific service, using at least one network slice) and a first radio frequency (Choe: Fig, 13, ¶ 241/272; wherein in step 1304, a wireless device may determine one or more frequencies that support the at least one network slice, used by the PDU session);
determine that the first radio frequency cannot support the first PDU session (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 273; wherein the UE/wireless device “may perform relaxed measurement for the frequency which does not support the at least one network slice used by the PDU session”);
select a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies and network slices (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274, ¶ 278; wherein in step 1305, a wireless device may perform a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies. For example, if a first frequency support one network slice used by the PDU session and a second frequency support two network slices used by the PDU session, the wireless device may select a cell on the second frequency); and
re-establish the first PDU session via the second network slice and the second radio frequency (Choe: Fig. 13, ¶ 274 - 290; wherein in step 1305, a wireless device may perform a cell reselection procedure based on the determined one or more frequencies, and the wireless device may assign a highest priority to a specific frequency that supports the at least network slice used by the PDU session. This reselection is using a new network slice and new frequency).
Choe teaches policy enforcement between slices but does not explicitly disclose selecting, by the end device, a second radio frequency and a second network slice based on route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations.
Referring to the invention of Ninglekhu, Ninglekhu teaches using route selection policies that include correlations between radio frequencies, network slices, and locations (Ninglekhu: ¶ 169, ¶ 234; wherein a UE may need to be camped on a proper PLMN for which, frequency bands and corresponding slices accessible through those bands are configured so that UEs could have access. Therefore, UE route selection policy may be enhanced to indicate a relation among the PLMN where UE is camped (i.e., the location of the UE), the slice(s) that UE is able to access (i.e., the network slices) and the operating frequency band (i.e., the radio frequencies) that UE needs to use to reach the network slice (i.e., conditions used to make sure the device uses the correct frequencies for a network slice connection)).
Thus, in view of such teaching by Ninglekhu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the invention of Choe further comprising the teaching of Ninglekhu in order to steer a device to the proper network slice and frequency, especially with regards to the location of the device (Ninglekhu: ¶ 233).
Regarding Claim 19, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions to re-establish comprise further instructions configured to:
transmit a PDU session establishment request that includes identifiers of the first and second network slices and a context identifier, which identifies context information pertaining to the first PDU session via the first network slice (Choe: ¶ 156 – 159; wherein slice awareness in NG-RAN is introduced at PDU session level, by indicating the S-NSSAI corresponding to the PDU Session, in all signaling containing PDU session resource information… and prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested. (Therefore, the end device will provide the context information required to be able to establish the first PDU session via the network slices it requests access to)).
Regarding Claim 20, Choe in view of Ninglekhu teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the correlations further include one or more of time periods or deployment modes (Choe: ¶ 279 – 280, ¶ 378, ¶ 391; wherein the wireless device may receive a time information informing that the at least one network slice used by the PDU session is unavailable for a certain time period. The wireless device may suspend the cell selection procedure and/or the cell reselection procedure for the certain time period. (Therefore, the correlations include time periods)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “transmitting, by the end device, a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause data indicating to change to the second network slice”.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “transmit a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause data indicating to change to the second network slice”.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record fail to disclose, alone or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim “transmit a PDU session release request that includes an identifier of the second network slice and cause data indicating to change to the second network slice”.
The Examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitations, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Welin et al. [US 20210392575 A1]: Methods, Wireless Communication Devices and Systems Adapted for Network Slicing Scenarios.
Yang et al. [US 20230081061 A1]: Network Selection Method, Network Connection Method, Terminal, and Storage Medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/SAUMIT SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights