DETAILED ACTION
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 of this title, 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 1, 3-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiruvasagam et al. (US 2026/0239464, “Thiruvasagam”) in view of Kim (US 2026/0067800, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Thiruvasagam discloses a method performed by a session management function (SMF) entity in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
- receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity, a first request message for a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment including a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) (See 2 Fig.2 and ¶.210, the AMF may send an Nsmf PDUSession Create SMContext Request message to the SMF including the PDU session establishment request message and/or the Unchecked NSSAI (including e.g., S-NSSAI #2)).
- transmitting, to a network function (NF) entity, a second request message for an admission control including the S-NSSAI (See 5a Fig.2 and ¶.222, SMF sends ‘an Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request’ message to NSACF for admission control; See ¶.114, Network Slice Admission Control (NSAC) controls the number of registered UEs per Network Slice and the number of PDU sessions per Network Slice. A Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) enforces NSAC to the S-NSSAIs which are subject to NSAC by coordinating with the AMF and the SMF; See ¶.146, there may be multiple NSACFs for different S-NSSAIs which are subject to NSAC and thus the AMF triggers checking of the number of UEs 3 per network slice availability and sending of the update request to multiple NSACFs 77; See ¶.148, the AMF uses an Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request service operation to share the UE ID, the S-NSSAI(s) value(s), and Access Type information with an NSACF 77 to increase the number of UEs 3 registered with the same S-NSSAI(s); See further ¶.494 for NSAC function; See ¶.226, the SMF selects S-NSSAI(s) (e.g., S-NSSAI #2) which is in the Unchecked NSSAI (or which is in the PDU session establishment request message) and is associated with the attribute “maximum number of UEs with at least one PDU session/PDN connection” and subject to NSAC; See ¶.227, the SMF uses an Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Request service operation to share the UE ID, the PDU session ID, the S-NSSAI(s) value(s), and Access Type information with an NSACF to increase the number of UEs 3 registered with the same S-NSSAI(s); Examiner’s Note: Kim discloses the limitation “a network function (NF) entity”).
Thiruvasagam discloses that “Network Slice Admission Control (NSAC) controls the number of registered UEs per Network Slice and the number of PDU sessions per Network Slice. A Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) enforces NSAC to the S-NSSAIs which are subject to NSAC by coordinating with the AMF and the SMF (Thiruvasagam, See ¶.114)”, but does not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses,
- determining whether the S-NSSAI is subject to energy control; and in case that the S-NSSAI is subject to the energy control (Kim, See ¶.7, receiving energy-related information from a second network function including at least one of AMF and SMF; See ¶.185, the Energy Information Repository Function (EIRF) may acquire and store information from SMF based on a request from the AF. For example, when the EIRF receives a request from the AF, the EIRF may collect energy consumption-related information per Network Function (NF) or per Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “determining whether the S-NSSAI is subject to energy control; and in case that the S-NSSAI is subject to the energy control” as taught by Kim into the system of Thiruvasagam, so that it provides a service related to at least one of storage and management of the energy-related information (Kim, See ¶.13).
Regarding claim 3, Thiruvasagam and Kim disclose “receiving, from the NF entity, a first response message for the admission control including information about an energy credit allocated by the NF entity (Thiruvasagam, See 7a Fig.2 and ¶.235, The NSACF 77 uses an Nnsacf_NSAC_NumOfUEsUpdate_Response service operation to inform to the SMF 71 of whether the limit of the maximum number of UEs 3 registered per Network Slice has been reached or not; Kim, See ¶.7, receiving energy-related information from a second network function including at least one of AMF and SMF; See ¶.185, the Energy Information Repository Function (EIRF) may acquire and store information from SMF based on a request from the AF. For example, when the EIRF receives a request from the AF, the EIRF may collect energy consumption-related information per Network Function (NF) or per Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI)).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Thiruvasagam discloses “transmitting, to the AMF entity, a second response message for the PDU session establishment including information about an energy credit allocated to a PDU session (See 8a Fig.2 and ¶.238-241, Step 8a: Upon reception of the response from the NSACF 77, the SMF 71 sends to the AMF 70 either a PDU Session Establishment Accept message by including an S-NSSAI from the Unchecked NSSAI received in step 3 or a PDU Session Establishment Reject message with a cause indicating that “maximum number of UEs with at least one PDU session per S-NSSAI is reached”. The cause may indicate that the maximum number of UEs with at least one PDU session/PDN connection per S-NSSAI is reached. [0239] For example, the SMF 71 may send the PDU Session Establishment Accept message including S-NSSAI #2. [0240] For example, the SMF 71 may send the PDU Session Establishment Accept message including S-NSSAI #2 in a case where the response from the NSACF 77 includes the information indicating that the maximum number of UEs registered for S-NSSAI #2 is not reached. [0241] For example, the SMF 71 may send the PDU Session Establishment Reject message including S-NSSAI #2).”
Regarding claim 5, it is a method claim performed by a network function (NF) entity corresponding to the method claims 1 & 3 performed by SMS and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 6, Thiruvasagam discloses “allocating, to a PDU session requested by a terminal (Thiruvasagam, See 2 Fig.2, a PDU session requested by a UE 3),” but does not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “at least one energy credit available to the S-NSSAI (Kim, See ¶.185, when the EIRF receives a request from the AF, the EIRF may collect, through and an Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), energy consumption-related information per Network Function (NF) or per Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (for example, energy efficiency information, energy consumption information of the RAN, or renewable energy information of the corresponding area) and generate necessary information).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Thiruvasagam does not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “the first response message includes at least one of information on an energy rate available to the S-NSSAI, or information on an energy use mode (Kim, See ¶.175, The EIRF may perform various energy-related functions, such as utilizing energy as a performance criterion for optimal communication, supporting various energy-efficiency modes in industrial campuses, exposing energy usage based on possible deployment scenarios, exposing energy usage information according to Non-Public Network (NPN) execution sharing, service energy monitoring by an application server, exposing energy usage information considering QoS, support for service-level energy efficiency analysis by industry, monitoring application energy efficiency, exposing renewable energy usage information, and supporting carbon-aware communication services; See ¶.181, through the PCF, energy-related policies such as energy consumption and types of energy used may be determined, and the corresponding policies may be delivered to and applied by the EIRF. In addition, subscription information of a UE related to energy, such as pricing plans and charging policies, may be managed by the UDM. Furthermore, the NEF may store energy-related information provided by the EIRF as structured data and expose the energy-related information to other network functions).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Thiruvasagam discloses “a second response message for the PDU session establishment is transmitted, from the SMF entity, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) entity (Thiruvasagam, See 8a Fig.2),” but does not explicitly disclose what Kim discloses “wherein the second response message includes the at least one of the information on the energy rate available to the S-NSSAI, or the information on the energy use mode (Kim, See ¶.7, receiving energy-related information from a second network function including at least one of a Network Exposure Function (NEF), a Policy Control Function (PCF), a Unified Data Management (UDM), an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), a Session Management Function (SMF), or a User Plane Function (UPF); storing the energy-related information; and providing the energy-related information to the second network function; See ¶.175 and ¶.181 cited in claim 7; See ¶.185, the EIRF may acquire and store information from one or more of the AMF, SMF, UPF, or RAN based on a request from the AF. For example, when the EIRF receives a request from the AF, the EIRF may collect, through and an Operation, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM), energy consumption-related information per Network Function (NF) or per Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (for example, energy efficiency information, energy consumption information of the RAN, or renewable energy information of the corresponding area) and generate necessary information).” Therefore, this claim is rejected with the similar reasons and motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, it is a SMF entity claim corresponding to the method claim 1 performed by a SMF except the limitations “a transceiver and at least one processor (See Fig.16)” and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, they are claims corresponding to claims 3 & 4, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, it is a network function (NF) entity claim corresponding to the method claim 5 performed by a NF entity and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Regarding claims 14-16, they are claims corresponding to claims 6-8, respectively and are therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claims.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiruvasagam in view of Kim and further in view of Bhangu et al. (US 2026/0197752, “Bhangu”).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that “the EIRF may collect energy consumption related information per Network Function (NF) or per Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (Kim, See ¶.185),”
but Thiruvasagam and Kim do not explicitly disclose what Bhangu discloses “in case that the S-NSSAI is subject to the energy control based on configuration information stored in the NF entity, an energy credit is distributed for the S-NSSAI by the NF entity (Bhangu, See Fig.2 and ¶.39, the EMF, i.e. a new NF, may be configured to calculate the energy consumption of various network elements within the communication system 100, including PDU session, network slice, but not limited thereto; See ¶.43, the UDM network function may be provisioned with information related to maximum energy consumptions (or “predefined energy thresholds”) at different granularities (e.g., network slice level, PDU session level, UE level, access network level, network function level, but not limited thereto) in the UE subscription information; See ¶.44, each NF of the one or more NFs may be associated with at least one UE, at least one PDU session, and/or at least one network slice. In such cases, the energy consumption assistance information may be obtained at a specified granularity level from the one or more NFs (e.g., per UE or per PDU session or per network slice, per network function, but not limited thereto). The energy consumption assistance information for the different network elements may help in calculating energy consumption of the different network elements; See ¶.47, Similarly, if the network element is a network slice (i.e., the request of Step S1 is for the energy consumption associated with the network slice), the EMF may transmit a request to the UDM network function 116 for providing maximum energy consumption or a predefined energy threshold associated with the network slice; See ¶.61, the EMF is configured to calculate energy consumption at different granularities (e.g., PDU session granularity, UE granularity, network slice granularity, etc.) and share the energy consumption with various consumers (e.g., the PCF 114). The EMF 124 is also configured to query the UDM network function 116 to obtain details about the serving SMF 122 for specific UE, S-NSSAI, and DNN. In this manner, the EMF 124 enhances subscription procedures by provisioning maximum energy consumption limits for network elements within the communication system and enables enforcement of energy consumption policies for services that do not have QoS criteria. It may be noted that the granularity of network energy related information exposure and energy consumption may vary based on different situations; Foreign Priority Application’491,
PNG
media_image1.png
129
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
306
687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
134
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
91
689
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
316
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the method of “in case that the S-NSSAI is subject to the energy control based on configuration information stored in the NF entity, an energy credit is distributed for the S-NSSAI by the NF entity” as taught by Bhangu into the system of Thiruvasagam and Kim, so that it provides a way for EMF to calculate the energy consumption of various network elements within the communication system, including PDU session, network slice (Bhangu, See ¶.39).
Regarding claim 10, it is a claim corresponding to the claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of the claim.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jung H Park whose telephone number is 571-272-8565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/JUNG H PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights