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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a readable storage medium” recited in claim 1 is treated as carrier wave or signal per se.
Regarding claims 19, 20, the limitation in line 1 that recites “a readable storage medium” is being treated as carrier wave or signal per se because the specification fails to explicitly define “readable storage medium” as a non-transitory medium/non-transitory computer-readable storage medium nor signal per se as evidenced in paragraphs 0128-0129, 0134-0139, 0141 of the original filed application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 14, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by ZHU et al (US 2021/0227392 A1).
Regarding claim 1, ZHU et al (US 2021/0227392 A1) discloses a resource control method (see, network slice access method, authenticating failures of a network slice (first network slice) section 0005-0007, see, rejecting access of the terminal deice to the network slice whose authentication fails ,section 0016-0017), comprising: determining (see, AFM associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138), by a network-side device (see, AFM associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138), failure of reactivation of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session initiated (see, cause of the PDU session establishment failure in relation to the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0123-0124) by a terminal (see, the terminal device is disallowed access to a first network slice based on the first information due to authenticating failure, section 0027-0030) due to network slicing access control (NSAC) of a first slice (section 0027-0030, 0031-the terminal device or UE is disallowed access to the first network slice); and transmitting (see, SFM element send second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause values information is used to indicated the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224), by the network-side device (see, SFM element sends second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause value information is used to indicate the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224-0225), a first message to the terminal (see, reject cause value to the terminal device/UE with respect to re-initiating a session establishment to the first network slice, section 0209-0215), wherein the first message carries at least one of the following: first indication information indicating that a cause of the failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session is failure of the NSAC of the first slice (see, AFM associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138, 0224-0225, 0238); and second indication information indicating a first timer bound to the first slice and indicating that the terminal is allowed to reinitiate reactivation of the first PDU session associated with the first slice after expiry of the first timer.
Regarding claim 3, ZHU ‘392 discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first indication information comprises a failure cause value (see, SFM element sends second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause values information is used to indicate the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224-0225), and the failure cause value comprises at least one of the following: congestion occurring at the network-side device (see, congestion caused by frequent access of the terminal device whose authentication functions fails, section 0011-0012); resources for the first slice being insufficient; and user plane resources for the first PDU session being insufficient.
Regarding claim 7, ZHU ‘392 discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising, before the transmitting, by the network-side device, the first message to the terminal: receiving, by the network-side device, an indication from an SMF indicating that the first slice is unavailable due to NSAC (see, the SMF network element receives authentication failures of the first network slice prior to transmitting the failure indication to the terminal device/UE, section 0220-0225).
Regarding claim 14, ZHU ‘392 discloses a network-side device (see, AFM associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138, the AMF network element receives session establishment request to the AMF network, section 0084-0088, fig. 12A to fig. 12B, network slice access control apparatus implemented in the AMF network), comprising a processor (fig. 12 A to fig. 12B, processing module 1202 coupled to sending module 1203, section 0258-0262, fig. 12B, processor 1205 coupled to memory 1206, section 0286-0287) and a memory (fig. 12B, memory 1206 coupled to the processor, the memory stores a computer program/computer-readable storage medium executed by the processor, section 0286-0287), wherein the memory stores a program or instruction executable on the processor (fig. 12B, memory 1206 coupled to the processor, the memory stores a computer program/computer-readable storage medium executed by the processor, section 0286-0287),, and the program or instruction, when executed by the processor (fig. 12B, memory 1206 coupled to the processor, the memory stores a computer program/computer-readable storage medium executed by the processor, section 0286-0290), causes the processor to: determine (see, AFM associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138) failure of reactivation of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session initiated (see, cause of the PDU session establishment failure in relation to the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0123-0124) by a terminal (see, the terminal device is disallowed access to a first network slice based on the first information due to authenticating failure, section 0027-0030) due to network slicing access control (NSAC) of a first slice (section 0027-0030, 0031-the terminal device or UE is disallowed access to the first network slice); and transmit (see, SFM element send second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause values information is used to indicated the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224, (see, SFM element sends second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause value information is used to indicate the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224-0225), a first message to the terminal (see, reject cause value to the terminal device/UE with respect to re-initiating a session establishment to the first network slice, section 0209-0215), wherein the first message carries at least one of the following: first indication information indicating that a cause of the failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session is failure of the NSAC of the first slice (see, AFM associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138, 0224-0225, 0238); and second indication information indicating a first timer bound to the first slice and indicating that the terminal is allowed to reinitiate reactivation of the first PDU session associated with the first slice after expiry of the first timer.
Regarding claim 16, ZHU ‘392 discloses the network-side device according to claim 14, wherein the first indication information comprises a failure cause value (see, SFM element sends second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause values information is used to indicate the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224-0225), and the failure cause value comprises at least one of the following: congestion occurring at the network-side device (see, congestion caused by frequent access of the terminal device whose authentication functions fails, section 0011-0012); resources for the first slice being insufficient; and user plane resources for the first PDU session being insufficient.
Regarding claim 19, ZHU ‘392 discloses a readable storage medium (fig. 12B, memory 1206 coupled to the processor, the memory stores a computer program/computer-readable storage medium executed by the processor, section 0286-0287)., wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instruction (fig. 12B, memory 1206 coupled to the processor, the memory stores a computer program/computer-readable storage medium executed by the processor, section 0286-0290), and when the program or instruction is executed by a processor, the steps of the resource control method according to claim 1 are implemented (fig. 12B, memory 1206 coupled to the processor, the memory stores a computer program/computer-readable storage medium executed by the processor, section 0286-0287).
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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU et al (US 2021/0227392 A1) ion view of Ryu et al (US 2020/0314731 A1).
ZHU ‘392 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein the reactivation of the first PDU session comprises switching of an access type of the first PDU session.
Regarding claim 15, ZHU ‘392 discloses the network-side device according to claim 14, wherein the reactivation of the first PDU session comprises switching of an access type of the first PDU session.
Regarding claim 17, the network-side device according to claim 14, wherein the program or instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to, before determining the failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session initiated by the terminal due to the NSAC of the first slice: receive a first request message transmitted by the terminal, wherein the first request message carries an identifier of the first PDU session, the first PDU session is associated with the first slice, and the first request message requests the reactivation of the first PDU session.
However, Ryu et al (US 2020/0314731 A1) from a similar field of endeavor discloses: Regarding claim 2, the method (see, PDU sessions to be re-activated upon request by the UE, section 0178, 0182, 0154) according to claim 1, wherein the reactivation of the first PDU session comprises switching of an access type of the first PDU session (see, PDU session that includes one or more PDU session types which may be established or modified upon a UE request or released upon a UE request, section0145-0146, 0182, 0184, 0205-0206-discloses implicitly changing of the PDU sessions to be re-activated by virtue of sending to the new AMG).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu ‘731 discloses the network-side device (see, PDU sessions to be re-activated upon request by the UE, section 0178, 0182, 0154) according to claim 14, wherein the reactivation of the first PDU session comprises switching of an access type of the first PDU session (see, PDU session that includes one or more PDU session types which may be established or modified upon a UE request or released upon a UE request, section0145-0146, 0182, 0184, 0205-0206-discloses implicitly changing of the PDU sessions to be re-activated by virtue of sending to the new AMF).
Regarding claim 17, ZHU ‘392 as modified by Ryu ‘731 discloses the network-side device according to claim 14, wherein the program or instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to, before determining the failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session initiated by the terminal due to the NSAC of the first slice (See, ZHU .392, see, rejection above regarding failure): receive a first request message transmitted by the terminal (Ryu ‘7312, see, one or more PDU sessions/PDU session type via network slices based on request by the UE, section 0120, 0171, 0145-0146), wherein the first request message carries an identifier of the first PDU session, the first PDU session is associated with the first slice (Ryu, see, PDU session that includes one or more PDU session types which may be established or modified upon a UE request or released upon a UE request, section0145-0146, 0182, 0184, and the first request message requests the reactivation of the first PDU session (Ryu ‘731, section 0182, 0184-PDU session to be re-activated based on request from the UE).
In view of the above, it 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 to modify the network slice access control method where the session management functions (SMF) element makes the terminal device aware of a failure to the first network slice by transmitting of cause value to the terminal device of ZHU ‘392 with the method and apparatus for handing of PDU sessions to re-activated based on a request to network slices of Ryu ‘731. The motivation would have been to provide switching of network slices based on the PDU session to be established.
Claims 8-9, 18,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al (US 2020/0314731 A1) in view of ZHU et al (US 2021/0227392 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu ‘731 discloses a resource control method (see, access to network slices that serve the UE based on NSSAI based on network slice policy function section 0117, 0127, 0132), comprising: transmitting (see, request of PDU sessions by the UE, where the PDU session support one or more PDU session types, section 0145-0146), by a terminal (see, request of PDU sessions by the UE, where the PDU session support one or more PDU session types, section 0145-0146), a first request message to a network-side device (see, the request for PDU sessions establishment by the UE to the DNN and AMF, section 0144-0146, 0177-0178, noted; the request is transmitted to the data network via a network slice, section 0154-0155) wherein the first request message carries an identifier of a first protocol data unit (PDU) session (see, request of PDU sessions by the UE, where the PDU session support one or more PDU session types, section 0145-0146, 0170-0172), the first PDU session is associated with a first slice (see, the request for PDU sessions establishment by the UE to the DNN and AMF, section 0144-0146, noted; the request is transmitted to the data network via a network slice, section 0154-0155, 0164-0167), and the first request message requests reactivation of the first PDU session (see, the UE sends a message/request for the PDU session to be re-activated, section 0182); and receiving, by the terminal, a first message transmitted by the network-side device, wherein the first message carries at least one of the following: first indication information indicating that a cause of failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session is failure of network slicing access control (NSAC) of the first slice; and second indication information indicating a first timer bound to the first slice and indicating that the terminal is allowed to reinitiate reactivation of the first PDU session associated with the first slice after expiry of the first timer.
Ryu ‘731 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly disclose: receiving, by the terminal, a first message transmitted by the network-side device, wherein the first message carries at least one of the following: first indication information indicating that a cause of failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session is failure of network slicing access control (NSAC) of the first slice; and second indication information indicating a first timer bound to the first slice and indicating that the terminal is allowed to reinitiate reactivation of the first PDU session associated with the first slice after expiry of the first timer.
However, ZHU et al (US 2021/0227392 A1) from a similar field of endeavor (see, network slice access method, authenticating failures of a network slice (first network slice) section 0005-0007, see, rejecting access of the terminal deice to the network slice whose authentication fails ,section 0016-0017) discloses: receiving (see, reject cause value to the terminal device/UE with respect to re-initiating a session establishment to the first network slice, section 0209-0215), by the terminal (see, reject cause value to the terminal device/UE with respect to re-initiating a session establishment to the first network slice, section 0209-0215), a first message transmitted by the network-side device (see, SFM element sends second cause value information to the terminal deice, where the cause values information is used to indicate the authentication fails to the first network slice, section 0224-0225), wherein the first message carries at least one of the following: first indication information (see, reject cause value to the terminal device/UE with respect to re-initiating a session establishment to the first network slice, section 0209-0215, 0224-0225) indicating that a cause of failure of the reactivation of the first PDU session is failure of network slicing access control (NSAC) of the first slice (see, AMF associated with the first network slice implicitly determines the terminal device/UE re-initiating of PDU session fails based on the authentication failure of the first network slice, section 0129, 0138, 0224-0225, 0238); and second indication information indicating a first timer bound to the first slice and indicating that the terminal is allowed to reinitiate reactivation of the first PDU session associated with the first slice after expiry of the first timer.
In view of the above, it 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 to implement the network slice access control method where the session management functions (SMF) element makes the terminal device aware of a failure to the first network slice by transmitting of cause value to the terminal device as taught by ZHU ‘392 into the method and apparatus for handing of PDU sessions to re-activated based on a request to network slices of Ryu ‘731. The motivation would have been to provide switching of network slices based on the PDU session to be established.
Regarding claim 9, Ryu ‘731discloses the method see, PDU sessions to be re-activated upon request by the UE, section 0178, 0182, 0154) according to claim 8, wherein the first request message indicates switching of an access type of the first PDU session (see, PDU session that includes one or more PDU session types which may be established or modified upon a UE request or released upon a UE request, section0145-0146, 0182, 0184, 0205-0206-discloses implicitly changing of the PDU sessions to be re-activated by virtue of sending to the new AMG).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu ‘731 discloses terminal (fig. 3, UE/wireless device 100 coupled to a base station 105-1, the UE includes processor 318 coupled to memory 326 storing instructions executed by the processor 318, section 0396), comprising a processor (fig. 3, UE/wireless device 100 coupled to a base station 105-1, the UE includes processor 318 coupled to memory 326 storing instructions executed by the processor 318, section 0396),and a memory (fig. 3, UE/wireless device 100 coupled to a base station 105-1, the UE includes processor 318 coupled to memory 326 storing instructions executed by the processor 318, section 0396),, wherein the memory stores a program or instruction executable on the processor (fig. 3, UE/wireless device 100 coupled to a base station 105-1, the UE includes processor 318 coupled to memory 326 storing instructions executed by the processor 318, section 0396),, and the program or instruction, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implemented the steps of the resource control method according to claim 8 (see, the terminal device, transmit request to modify/release of the PDU sessions, PDU sessions to be re-reactivated, section 0145-0148, 0182).
Regarding claim 20, Ryu ‘731 discloses a readable storage medium (section 0396-memory coupled to one or more processor, the memory store instructions executed by the one or more processors, see, claim 11-the AMF-comprises one or more processors, one or more memories), wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instruction (section 0396-memory coupled to one or more processor, the memory store instructions executed by the one or more processors, see, claim 11-the AMF-comprises one or more processors, one or more memories), and when the program or instruction is executed by a processor, the steps of the resource control method according to claim 8 are implemented (see, the terminal device, transmit request to modify/release of the PDU sessions, PDU sessions to be re-reactivated, section 0145-0148, 0182).
Claims 4-6, 10-13, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Talebi Fard et al (US 2019/0182875 A1) discloses activating of PDU sessions and updating of PDUS sessions, relocation of PDU session, rejecting the activation of PDU session, PDU session re-stablishment (section 0109-0245).
Talebi further discloses AMFnotifying the SMF that PDU session may not be re-activated (section 0166-168) and PDU session establishment to network slice (section 137, 0147-0151).
Normann et al (US 2023/0171598 A1) discloses network slice access control for PDU session establishment (section 0008, 013, 0039,0050, 0055, 0100-0200).
LOU et a (2019/0230584 A1) discloses re-initiating of network slice access (section 0262, 0296, 0302).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CANDAL ELPENORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3123. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6 pm M-F.
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, Kwang B Yao can be reached at 571 272-3182. 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.
/CANDAL ELPENORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights