Apple Inc.
[2022] APO 25
•04 April 2022
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Apple Inc. [2022] APO 25
Patent Application: 2019202701
Title:Network slice selection
Patent Applicant: Apple Inc.
Delegate:Neil Miller
Decision Date: 04 April 2022
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 17 September 2021
Catchwords: PATENTS - section 45 – examiner’s objection – whether amendments to the claims made under s104 allowable – consideration s102 – “as a result of the amendment” – what matter was disclosed in the specification as filed – amendments allowable
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: FPA Patent Attorneys
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2019202701
Title:Network slice selection
Patent Applicant: Apple Inc.
Date of Decision: 04 April 2022
DECISION
There is sufficient basis in the specification as originally filed for the proposed amendments. I find that the amendments are allowable.
As opinion on the grounds of novelty and inventive step was reserved, I refer the application back to examination in order to reassess these grounds and, if warranted, issue another adverse examination report. If not, the application may proceed to acceptance.
Pursuant to sub-regulation 13.4(3), the final date to gain acceptance is set at six (6) months from the date of this decision.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Australian patent application 2019202701 (“the application”) in the name of Apple Inc (“the applicant”) was filed on 17 April 2019. The application is a divisional application to Australian patent application 2016379814 (“the parent application”). The parent application being the national phase entry PCT/CN2016/088320 which has a filing date and a priority date of 4 July 2016.
A request for examination accompanied the application at filing. The first examination report issued 25 March 2020 with objections under the grounds of inventive step and a lack of clarity.
The applicant responded on 4 September 2020 with a first statement of proposed amendments. The proposed amendments sought to align the claims on file with the claims as allowed in the United States. The applicant submitted that the proposed amendments further clarified the nature of the invention and overcame the objections raised in the first report.
A second examination report issued on 23 September 2020. The second report maintained that the invention so far as claimed lack an inventive step. The applicant responded to the second examination report on 16 December 2020 with a second statement of proposed amendments. The applicant again submitted that the proposed amendments overcame the grounds of objection as set out in the second report and thus the application was in order for acceptance.
A third examination report issued on 12 January 2021. The report objected to the proposed amendments on the basis that they were not allowable under the provisions of s102(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (“the Act”). As a result of this objection the examiner maintained the inventive step objection of the second report.
The applicant responded on 11 February 2021. The applicant submitted by way of written argument that the amendments were allowable pursuant to s102(1). In their submissions the applicant referred to several passages in the specification that in their view offered support for the proposed amendments. The applicant in their submission drew particular attention to Figs 12 and 13 and to the discussion in relation to these figures occurring at paras [0123], [0137], [0138] and [0140].
A fourth examination report issued 10 March 2021. The report maintained that the amendments as proposed on 16 December 2020 were not allowable under the provision of s102(1) of the Act. The examiner also reserved opinion on the grounds of novelty and inventive step in view of the allowability issue.
On 24 March 2021 the applicant filed a request to be heard in relation to the outstanding examiner’s objection.
The Disclosure in the Specification as Originally Filed
At paragraph [0001] of the specification, it is stated that the invention generally relates to apparatuses, systems, and methods for network slice selection. The general concept of network slicing in terms of the instant invention is further discussed at paras [0005]-[0007].
10.Para [0005] states that a network slice selection entity is employed to enable the selection of a network slice which may be a core network slice and/or a radio access network slice for a particular wireless device connection. The network slice selection may be based on a service type and/or application associated with a service request for which network slice selection is being performed, user subscription information, network operator policy, and/or any of various other considerations. The specification also indicates that the wireless device can provide an indication of a preferred network slice for the service request which may be considered by the network slice selection entity when selecting the network slice.
11.Per para [0007] it is possible for a wireless device to connect to multiple network slices at the same time. In these cases, each service or connection request may trigger a new query to the network slice selection entity, and this could then result in some, or all of the requests being associated with different network slices.
12.It is worth noting here that the specification states that the network slice selection unit does not necessarily perform control signalling or user data routing but may simply store address information for the control plane entry point of each core network slice. This information can then be passed to the Radio Network Access (RAN) node that is requesting the network slice.
13.At paras [0023]-[0036] a glossary of terms is provided. On a review of this glossary, I do not see anything that would significantly alter the meaning of these terms as they would be understood by the skilled addressee. For example, the definitions of user equipment, wireless device, communication device, base station and cell fit with the meanings that would normally be ascribed to them by one who is familiar with communication networks.
14.The discussion at paras [0037]-[0062] concerns various infrastructure components that make up the communication network on which the instant invention can be suitably deployed. Discussion is provided on the basic arrangement of the user equipment (UE) i.e. a mobile/smart phone or the like, a base station and other network elements employed within the communication system. In general, the discussion at paras [0037]-[0062] does not depart from the conventional arrangement of such devices within a communications network as it would be understood by a skilled addressee.
15.Further elaboration on the concept of network slicing is also provided at paras [0063]-[0073]. Again, these passages highlight that the purpose of network slicing is to provide multiple slices, where each slice may include a set of network functions (NFs) selected to provide some specific telecommunication service(s) and network capabilities, and the resources to run these NFs. In these passages of the specification network slicing is described as a technique that allows the network operator to create customised networks for different network scenarios that have diverse requirements in areas of functionality, performance, and isolation.
16.At paras [0066]-[0073] of the specification a number of key principles for supporting network slicing in a RAN are set out these include:
·The RAN may be aware of the possibility of network slices and may be expected to support differentiated handling of different network slices that have been pre-configured by the operator.
·The RAN may be expected to support the selection of the RAN part of the network slice by an index or ID provided by the UE, where the ID may unambiguously identify one of the pre-configured network slices in the public land mobile network (PLMN).
·The RAN may be expected to assist with resource management between slices via policy enforcement between the slices based on service level agreements.
·The RAN may be expected to support quality of service (QoS) differentiation within a slice.
·The RAN may be expected to support initial selection of the Core Network (CN) entity for initial routing of uplink messages based on received slice index and a mapping in the RAN node.
·The RAN may be expected to support resource isolation between slices.
·The manner in which a RAN supports the slice enabling in terms of RAN functions (i.e., the set of network functions that form each slice) may be implementation dependent, e.g., provided the generally agreed upon principles for supporting network slicing are upheld.
17.At paras [0075]-[00117], various network slice selection logical architectures and associated procedures are discussed with reference to Figs 6-11. In each of the arrangements of Figs 6-11 different network slice selection solutions are proposed. For example, in the architectures illustrated in Fig 6 and 7 slice selection is either performed within the RAN or a combination of the RAN and the CN via a one step or two step selection mechanism. In the example depicted in Figs 8 and 9 slice selection is performed through the use of network selection functions and C-plane functions. In the case of Figs 10 and 11 slice selection is performed through the use common plane network function and an access control agent (ACA).
18.On a closer review of Figs 6, 7 and 8 it can be seen that different network slices are capable of supporting different network functions. I note however that there is no specific description of the actual functions supported within each network slices as shown in each of these figures. The figures do however show that each network slice supports various network functions some of which overlap with that of other network slices. For example, in Fig 6 multiple slices are illustrated these being denoted as General CN instances A and B which implement the same network functions NF1, NF2 and NF3. Fig 6 also depicts a further two network slices denoted as NB CN instance A and NB CN instance B, each of these slices implement network functions NF1and NF3. In Fig 7 three network slices are illustrated CN slice A, CN slice B and CN slice C. As shown network Slices A and B implement the same network functions, while Slice C differs from Slice A and B in that it does not implement the network function MM2. Fig 8 depicts two network slices (core network instances) each of which supports the same network functions.
19.While Figs 6-11 outline possible architectures for network slicing according to some embodiments of the invention, the process of network slicing according to the instant invention is best understood with reference to Figs 12 and 13 (reproduced below). It is noted that the specification refers to the embodiment as discussed in relation Figs 12 and 13 as being the proposed network slice selection solution.
20.Fig 12, as in the case of Figs 6, 7 and 8, depicts a number of network slices, each of which are capable of implementing different network functions. As shown in Fig 12 network slice 1 (NS1) supports different network functions to that of network slice 2 (NS2). More specifically NS1 supports network functions CP NF1, CP NF2, UP NF1 and UP NF5 while NS2 supports network functions CP NF3, CP NF 4, UP NF2, UP NF3 and UP NF4.
21.Fig 13 illustrates the signalling procedures utilised in this embodiment to fulfilling a first service request and a second service request issued by the UE. “Part 1” shown in Fig 13 outlines the signalling associated with the first service request, while “Part 2” outlines the signalling associated with the second service request.
22.As shown in Part 1, the UE 1222 establishes a connection 1301 with a node in the RAN 1224. Once the connection is established the UE sends a first service request in this instance the request is in the form of a non-access stratum (NAS) connection request. The request includes the UE’s ID, a Service Type, Application ID. Additionally the connection request includes an indication of the UE’s preferred network slice (i.e. NSID).
23.The RAN node sends a network slice selection request message to the Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF). The selection request message including information obtained from the UE. The NSSF then determines whether it has valid subscription data and/or network slice selection related data for the UE. This can be done by sending a request to the home subscriber server (HSS). The HSS in response provides the requested data to the NSSF. The NSSF then select a network slice for the UE, the selection being made based on a number of factors including any or all of the network operator's network slice selection policies, information relating to physical and/or subscription characteristics of the UE and/or information relating to the first service request etc.
24.If the UE’s preferred NSID is available and is compatible with the selection policy, the UE preferred NSID is given the highest priority among all matching NSIDs and may be selected. If the UEs preferred NSID is not compatible with the selection policy, the NSSF may select a different NSID i.e. a non-preferred slice. In such cases the NSSF selects the NSID with the highest priority among all matching NSIDs. The NSSF then communication the slice selection to the RAN via a selection response message. The NSSF indicates the selected NSID and the associated IP address information for the selected control plane (CP) entry point (shown as NS1 and NS1 CP in Fig 13)
25.In the embodiment depicted in Fig 13 the NSID may include a Core Network Slice ID or a Radio Network Access Slice ID (RANSID). In some cases, the network selection response may implicitly indicate a specific core network slice and/or a specific radio access network slice for the service request i.e. a first core network slice and/or a first radio access network slice for the first service request.
26.Following receipt of the slice selection response message, the RAN then sends a connection request message to the NS1 CP entry point. The connection request message includes the NAS connection request message, which includes the selected NSID (i.e. NSID1) and RAN node ID. The RAN node then establishes a UE context with the selected slice NSID1 and the NS1 CP entry point IP address. The NS1 CP entry point then executes the connection establishment procedure for the selected slice. The connection establishment procedure may be network slice specific and may involve different network functions. For example, the connection establishment procedure may include any or all of authentication, temporary ID allocation, IP address allocation, session establishment etc.
27.A connection response message is then sent to the RAN node. The connection response message carries the NAS connection establishment response and one or more addresses for other network functions in NS1. The RAN send the NAS connection establishment response to the UE which includes information such as a temporary UE ID, an IP address allocated for the UE and/or other NAS connection related information for the UE. The connection to the selected network slice is then established.
28.In the scenario depicted in Part 2 of Fig 13 a second service request is issued by the UE. This second service request is a new service request for particular service type (i.e. a second service type). This second service type being different from the first service type per para [0137]. As shown the system using similar signalling procedures as detailed above proceeds to establish a connection with a different network slice to that chosen in respect of the first service request in order to fulfil the second service request.
The Proposed Amendments
29.The claims under consideration in this instance are those as proposed in the amendments filed 16 December 2020. There are 20 claims in total of these claims 1, 9 and 14 are independent. Claim 1 as proposed to be amended is reproduced below, with the text added by the amendment of 16 December 2020 underlined:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a processor configured to cause a network slice selection function (NSSF) of a
cellular network to:
receive a network slice selection request associated with a non-access stratum (NAS) request for a first service type by a user equipment device (UE), wherein the network slice selection request comprises a network slice identifier (NSID) indicating a UE-preferred network slice for the UE included in the NAS request;
select a network slice based on at least a network operator's policy, wherein to select the network slice the processor is configured to cause the NSSF to:
determine that the UE-preferred network slice is not compatible with a selection policy; and
selecting a network slice of the cellular network to provide the first service type to the UE, wherein the selected network slice is different from the UE preferred network slice in response to the network slice selection request, wherein the selected network slice matches the selection policy; and
provide a network slice selection response, wherein the network slice selection response indicates the selected network slice, wherein the selected network slice is associated with a control plane entry point.
30.Claim 9 is ostensibly directed to the use of programming code to implement a network slice selection function in accordance with the present invention. Claim 14 is directed to a method of managing the network slice selection function. Claims 9 and 14 recite similar limitation to that of claim 1 and include the features of receiving the NAS request for a first service type, the NAS indicating the UE’s preferred network slice. The selection of the network slice is then carried out based on a network operator's policy selecting a network slice of the cellular network to provide the first service type to the UE, wherein the selected network slice is different from the UE’s preferred network slice.
31.In the present circumstances the amendments to the independent claims seek to clarify that the slice selection request is for a first service type, and that service type can be serviced by a non-preferred network slice.
The Examiner’s objections
32.In the third report dated 12 January 2021, the examiner formed the view that the introduction of the feature of “select[ing] a network slice of the cellular network to provide the first service type to the UE, wherein the selected network slice is different from the UE preferred network slice in response to the network slice selection request”, was not allowable. The objection stated as follows:
“…the newly introduced feature ‘select a network slice of the cellular network to provide the first service type to the UE, wherein the selected network slice is (examiner’s emphasis) different from the UE preferred network slice in response to the network slice selection request', defined in lines 12-14 of claim 1 is not disclosed in the specification as originally filed. Previously defined invention resides in providing an alternative (or a default) network slice when the requested network slice is not available. However, the proposed amendment introduces the feature 'a first service type to be provided to the UE wherein the selected network slice is different to the UE-preferred network slice'. UE to receive first service type regardless of the availability of UE-preferred network slice.”
“…The description as originally filed discloses that a different network slice is allocated when the UE preferred network slice is not compatible with the selection policy (i.e. subscription characteristics of the UE - see paras 0128-0131). However it doesn't disclose that the same service type is provided to the UE with the selected slice (i.e. not using the slice that UE preferred) (my emphasis). …”.
33.A similar objection was maintained by the examiner in the fourth report. The passages from this objection that are relevant to these proceedings are identified below:
“…I cannot readily identify the disclosure of this feature (select a network slice of the cellular network to provide the first service type to the UE (examiner’s emphasis), wherein the selected network slice is different (examiner’s emphasis) from the UE preferred network slice in response to the network slice selection request) in the specification as originally filed. …”
“Applicant states that 'paragraph [0005] of the application as filed discloses “The network slice selection may be based on a service type and/or application associated with the service request (examiner’s emphasis) for which network slice selection is being performed”. Thus, from the very beginning the specification clearly connects a service request with a particular service type. Moreover, the summary continues: [0007] Further according to the techniques described herein, it may be possible for a wireless device to connect to multiple network slices at the same time. For example, each service or connection request may trigger a new query to the network slice selection entity, which may result in some or all of those service or connection request being associated with different network slices.'”
However, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s position. Paragraphs 0005 & 0007 set out that the network slice selection may be based on a service type i.e. preferred service request from UE. However the claimed invention defines a feature of selecting a different slice instead of UE preferred slice option.(examiner’s emphasis)
Applicant also states that PARA 0118 (FIGS. 12-13) discloses 'the techniques allowing a device to connect to different slices for different services (based on UE preferences)' (examiner’s emphasis). It is understood that a device can connect to different network slices for different services. However, PARA 0118 does not specifically disclose that a different network slice will be provided for the same UE requested service type.
Note that PARA 0123 does not disclose that overlapping network slice would provide the requested service if the UE preferred network slice is not compatible with a selection policy (examiner’s emphasis). An overlapping communication does not necessarily ensure providing requested service when UE preferred network slice is incompatible. In addition, NS1 1230 and NS2 1240 are the preferred slice for a particular service type based on the specification. However, the claimed invention seeks to define a not preferred slice type for the same service request, which is ambiguous and it is the examiner's contention that this is not disclosed by the description as originally filled. (my emphasis)
Furthermore, the applicant states that PARA '[0137] In step 1312, the UE 1222 may provide a new service request message to the RAN node 1224. The new service request message may function as a “second” service request, e.g., for requesting a connection to obtain a particular service (e.g., different from the first service) from the network. The new service request may include any of various types of information potentially including but not limited to a UE ID, Service Type, Application ID, etc. Optionally, the UE 1222 may include an indication of one or more preferred network slices (e.g., a UE preferred NSID) in the message.'
PARA 0137 clearly states that 'new service request requests for connection to obtain services for example different from the first services'. PARA 0137 does not explicitly disclose the same service type is provided to the UE with the selected slice (i.e. not using the slice that UE preferred). (my emphasis)”
34.As previously noted, the examiner then reserved opinion on the grounds of novelty and inventive step.
Applicable Law
35.The present matter arises over the question of whether the amendments as proposed to the claims are allowable pursuant to the provisions of the Act and more specifically the provisions of s102 of the Act.
36.The application was filed on 17 April 2019. As a consequence, substantive amendments of the Act brought about by the Intellectual Property LawsAmendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (the Raising the Bar Act) apply to the present application. This includes the amendment to subsection 102(1) which precludes the inclusion of subject matter extending beyond the original disclosure.
37.Section 104 states that the applicant is entitled to request amendments:
(1) An applicant for a patent or a patentee, may, subject to this Act, and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, ask the Commissioner for leave to amend the relevant patent request or complete specification, or any other filed document, for any purpose including either or both of the following:
(a) removing a lawful ground of objection to the request or specification, whether that objection is raised in the course of an examination or re-examination or otherwise;
(b) correcting a clerical error or an obvious mistake.
38.Section 104(5) then sets out the criteria for allowability of an amendment:
(5) The Commissioner must not allow an amendment that is not allowable under section 102.
39.Section 102(1) as amended by the Raising the Bar Act states:
(1) An amendment of a complete specification is not allowable if, as a result of the amendment, the specification would claim or disclose matter that extends beyond that disclosed in the following documents taken together:
(a) the complete specification as filed;
(b) other prescribed documents (if any).
40.The documents that have been prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 102(1)(b) are set out in regulation 10.2A. For the purposes of this decision, it is not necessary to consider these documents.
41.The Explanatory Memorandum to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 makes it clear that s102 as amended is intended to prevent the addition of new matter to the description:
"The item introduces a provision preventing amendment of a complete patent specification after filing to add new matter that would go beyond the disclosure contained in the specification at its filing date. An applicant would not be able to amend the specification to add any material that the hypothetical skilled person could not directly derive by reading the information in the specification as filed."
42.Most recently the provision of s102 as amended under the Raising the Bar Act were considered by the Federal Court in Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v BASF Plant Science GmbH [2020] FCA 328 (“CSIRO”). At [14] Beach J sets out the general approach to adopt when deciding allowability of an amendment under section 102(1):
“Now it is not in doubt that the matter arising “as a result of the amendment” is identified by identifying the difference between the application as accepted and the application as proposed to be amended. One then compares what is disclosed in the application as proposed to be amended, of course read as a whole, with what is disclosed in the application as filed (emphasis added). If as a result of the amendment proposed, the specification would disclose or claim matter that extends beyond that disclosed in the application as filed, the amendment is not allowable. Moreover, part of the analysis concerning construing the application as filed is to be undertaken through the eyes of a person skilled in the art at the relevant time.” (emphasis added)
43.In CSIRO, his Honour undertook an analysis of the position taken in the United Kingdom and that of the European Patent Convention at [191]-[213]. From this analysis his Honour noted a number of concepts at [215]-[218] applicable to the construction of s102(1) as amended under the Raising the Bar Act. These are summarised below:
·The test is a strict one;
·Subject matter will be impermissibly added unless the matter is clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the application as filed;
·The required disclosure may be express or implied, but on any view must be clearly and unambiguously so. In this regard, a patent applicant is not permitted to add by amendment matter simply because it would have been obvious to the skilled person;
·Context is important. A patent applicant cannot extract features disclosed in one context and introduce them into a specification stripped of that context.
44.In accordance with the above, the consideration is whether the proposed amendments result in the specification claiming or disclosing new matter. This consideration requires a comparison of the claims as proposed to be amended, with what is disclosed in the application as filed as would be understood by a person skilled in the art at the relevant time.
The Applicant’s Submissions
45.The applicant at paragraphs [10]-[12] of their submissions provides some background information in relation to the concept of network slicing. The information at [10] directly refences para [0063] of the specification which I have previously discussed above at [16].
46.At [11] the Applicant provides some additional context in relation to the practice of network slicing as follows:
“In commercial terms, network slicing may allow a network operator to create specific virtual networks that cater to particular clients and use cases. Certain applications - such as mobile broadband, machine-to-machine communications (e.g. in manufacturing or logistics), or smart cars - can benefit from leveraging different aspects of 5G technology. One application might require higher speeds, another low latency, and yet another access to edge computing resources. By creating separate slices that prioritize specific resources, a network operator can offer tailored solutions to users/use cases.”
47.Further support for the above statements is provided at [12] of the submissions. Here the applicant directly references para [0106] of the specification which exemplifies the provision of different customisations such as vehicle-to-X (V2X), embedded mobile broadband (eMBB) etc. The applicant also states at [12] that while the slices may have different customisations, they may nevertheless provide the same services.
48.At [14] of their submission the applicant summarises the nature of the objection advanced by the examiner as follows:
“…examiner argued that the application as filed failed to disclose the feature of selecting a network slice of the cellular network to provide the first service type to the UE (applicant’s emphasis), wherein the selected network slice is different from the UE preferred network slice in response to the network slice selection request. The examiner concedes that the description as originally filed discloses that a different network slice is allocated when the UE preferred network slice is not compatible with the selection policy. However, he argues that the description as filed does not disclose that the same service type is provided to the UE with the selected slice.”
49.At [17] the applicant submits claims 1, 9, and 14 were originally disclosed at least in Figures 12-13 and paragraphs [00118]-[00145] of the specification as filed. The applicant then proceeds to discuss the operation of the embodiment as depicted in Figs 12 and 13 with reference to paragraphs [00118]-[00145] (applicant’s submissions at [18]-[31]).
50.The discussion provided by the applicant at [18]-[31] does not substantially deviate from what is set out in the specification in relation to Fig 12 and 13, which I have detailed above. However, the applicant has sought to highlight a number of passages from the specification which I refer to below.
51.With respect to the discussion of Fig 12 the applicant has sought to highlight the disclosure at paras [0120] and [0122]. In particular the applicant has drawn attention to the following passages:
“The NSSF may be responsible for selecting a Network Slice for a particular UE connection upon request by the RAN node 1224, e.g., based on user subscription information from the HSS and the network operator's policies.” ; and
“ if a UE preferred NSID is provided and matches the selection policy used by the network, the preferred NSID may be chosen by the NSSF 1226 as having highest priority among all matching NSIDs, while if no UE preferred NSID is provided or if the provided UE preferred NSID does not match the selection policy used by the network, the NSSF 1226 may select a different NSID (e.g., one with a highest priority among all matching NSIDs) for the UE 1222.”
52.Similar passages are highlighted in relation to the applicant’s discussion of Fig 13. More specifically the applicant highlights that at para [0131] the NSSF can select a different NSID if the provided UE preferred NSID does not match the selection policy.
53.At [29] of the submissions the applicant advances, that the examiner’s main contention is that the description as filed fails to disclose that the same service type is provided to the UE with the selected network slice. The applicant also notes at [32] of their submissions that the examiner argued in the third report “If the user is not subscribed to the first service type, a question arises on how does the network provide the same service (first service type) using a different network slice.”. In the applicant’s opinion it would appear that the examiner has misconstrued the claimed invention. More specifically the examiner has assumed that there is a 1:1 relationship between service types and network slices and on the basis of this assumption it is not possible for the NSSF to select a different network slice for a particular service request and if the NSSF selects a different network slice then it must also offer a different service to the UE than the service requested by the UE.
54.The applicant submits that there is no support in the description for the construction and assumptions made by the examiner. The applicant then refers to Fig 13 and the corresponding discussion and notes that there is no mention of any signal flow returning to the UE and/or requesting for a change in the service type or requesting the UE to make a new service request.
55.At [34] of their submissions the applicant proceeds to provide a discussion of how a network operator can employ two different slices that are customised in different ways that are in keeping with the general principles of the instant invention. Here the applicant refers to the implementation of a first network slice that provides an eMBB service to a first group of UEs and a second network slice that provides eMBB service to a second group of UEs. The first network slice may provide the eMBB service to a particular set of users e.g. a group of users from a particular organisation. The second network slice provides an eMBB to any other users that are not part of the organisation serviced by the first network slice. In one usage scenario a request for the eMBB service from a UE that specifies the first network slice as the preferred slice, the UE however is not part of the first group (UE is not associated with the particular organisation specified in the first network slice). Consequently, if the request does not match the network operator’s selection policy and thus is not eligible to use the first network slice, using the claimed invention, the NSSF determines using the selection policy which network slice can be used to service the UEs Request. In the example provided the network slice that is the next best match is the second slice and thus the UEs request could be directed to the second network slice for fulfilment.
56.While the example provided by the applicant is of assistance in understanding the general concept of network slice selection that may well be possible utilising the instant invention, it does not form part of specification as filed. Nor does it constitute materials falling within the provisions of regulation 10.2A.
Are the Amendments allowable
57.The determination of whether the amendments are allowable requires a comparison of the of the proposed to amendments, with the original disclosure of specification as filed. In the present circumstances this is a relatively simple matter. Here the key difference is the introduction of the feature of selecting a network slice to fulfil the request for a first service type that is different to the preferred network slice that was indicated in the request. It is this feature which the examiner has taken umbrage.
58.As discussed above the applicant has advanced that the examiner has misconstrued the claims and specification. More specifically the applicant asserts that the examiner is labouring under the misapprehension that there is a 1:1 relationship between service types and network slices.
59.Claim 1 as currently proposed is directed to the selection of a network slice to service a request for a first service type from a UE. On a plain reading of the claim the UE sends a request for the first service type along with an indication of a the UEs preferred network slice. The network slice selection function (NSSF) then proceeds to select a network slice based on a selection policy. More specifically the NSSF firstly determines if the UEs preferred network slice is compatible with the selection policy i.e. determines if preferred slice is available for selection. If the UEs preferred network slice is not compatible, then the NSSF proceed to select a different network slice to fulfil the request for the first service type. The selection being in accordance with the selection policy. The selection of a particular network slice to service the request is then communicated to the UE and a connection is established.
60.The claim is clearly directed to the fulfilment of the first service request by selecting an alternate network slice in the event that the UEs preferred (i.e. default) network slice is not possible given the network operator's selection policy. The selected network slice being one that is compatible with the network operator's selection policy.
61.Here I am drawn back to the examiner’s statements in the fourth report more specially that “the claimed invention seeks to define a not preferred slice type (emphasis added) for the same service request, which is ambiguous, and it is the examiner's contention that this is not disclosed by the description as originally filled”. I note on a review of the reasoning provided in the objection that the examiner refers to a slice type. However, the claim makes no reference to a slice type, rather the claim recites a service type and a network slice. It may well be that the examiner’s consideration of the term slice type is what has given rise to the perceived ambiguity referenced by the examiner.
62.As I have noted above the claim is clear as to the manner in which the requested service type is to be fulfilled. In my view the manner in which the selection of the network slice is made, as recited in the claims, is not ambiguous. Even if, I am to adopt the examiner’s view that there is an ambiguity, it is one that is entirely resolvable utilising the general principles of construction.
63.Firstly, the specification at para [0003] makes it clear at para that the concept of network slicing is to enable the creation of different customised slices within the operator’s network that cater to different use cases and scenarios. As I have noted above the discussion at paras [0063]-[0073] of the specification also highlights that the purpose of network slicing is to provide multiple slices, where each slice may include a set of network functions (NFs) selected to provide some specific telecommunication service(s) and network capabilities, and the resources to run these NFs. This is also evident from my review of Figs 6, 7, 8 and 12 see above at [18]-[21].
64.Thus, on a plain reading of the specification it has been illustrated that it is possible for multiple network slices to be implemented, wherein one or more of these slices may provide a set of network functions that are the same or overlap with that of another network slice. This is in keeping with the general concept of network slicing where the network operator is able to configure the functionality provided by each slice discussed at para [0003] and [0063]-[0073].
65.My understanding of the arrangement of the slices is also supported by the discussion provided in the specification in relation to Fig 13. As the applicant has pointed out the discussion of Fig 13 is couched in terms of the signalling relating to the request for the first service type (shown as Part 1 in Fig 13) and then the signalling for the request for a second service type (shown as Part 2 in Fig 13). It is apparent from the discussion of the signalling that the handling of the request for the first service type and second service type are separate processes and not part of a singular request for a service type. This is also evident from para [00137] where it is stated that the second service request is “a new service request message” and that this new service request message is requesting a connection to obtain a particular service different from the first service. It is noted however that the process of selecting the network slice for the second service request can utilise information from the UE obtained during the first service request that is stored by the NSSF.
66.As I have discussed above at [22] the NSSF makes the selection of the network slice based on the selection policy of the network operator where the preferred network slice is selected if it is compatible with the selection policy. If the UEs preferred network slice is not compatible with the selection policy, the NSSF select a different NSID e.g. an NSID with the highest priority among all matching NSIDs. This is expressly disclosed in the specification at [00131]. It is clear from this disclosure that the NSSF seeks to satisfy the first service request by selecting an appropriate network slice to service the request. Ideally this is the preferred network slice and in the event that it is not compatible with the selection policy it is another network slice (i.e. a different or non-preferred network slice) that can service the request.
67.It is implicit in the disclosure at [00131] that the selected network slice must support the service type otherwise it would be incapable of servicing the request which would then prevent the NSSF from performing the remaining steps of fulfilling the request as discussed at [00132]-[00136].
68.The examiner in the third and fourth reports has stated that the specification does not disclose that the same service type is provided to the UE with the selected slice (i.e. different or non-preferred slice) and that para [00137] of the specification does not explicitly disclose that the same service type is provided to the UE via the selected slice. In my view this interpretation is at odds with the disclosure of the specification considered as a whole. As I have noted at [64] para [00137] concerns the issuing of a new service request and not the first service request as intermated by the examiner. Furthermore, the specification provides for the implementation of one or more network slices that support various network functions some of which overlap with that of other network slices i.e. there is more than one network slice that is capable of providing the requested service type.
69.Moreover, on a reading of paras [00132]-[00136] it is clear that the system selects a network slice to fulfil the UE’s request for a particular service type. More specifically the specification at [00132] states that the NSSF send a selection response message that indicates the ID of the selected network slice. The UE is then able to utilise the information in the selection response message to establish a connection with the identified network slice and access the requested service see paras [00133]-[00136]. It is therefore apparent on the face of the specification that the selected slice, even if it is a non-preferred network slice, is capable of providing the requested service type to the UE.
70.Assuming the selected network slice (i.e. a non-preferred slice) is incapable of supporting the requested service type would mean that the request for the service type even on establishment of a connection would not be fulfilled. There is no utility in connecting the UE to a slice that cannot service the request. If I am to adopt this construction, then the invention as described in relation to Fig 13 would not function as intended. Such a construction would render the instant invention inoperable, which is an absurdity and should be discounted in accordance with the general principles of construction. The only way such a construction holds is if the second service request is a re-transmission of the first service request. As I have discussed the specification makes it eminently clear that the second service request is a new service request, and that second service type is different from the first service type.
71.In view of the above I am inclined to concur with the position of the applicant there is no support in the description for the construction advanced by the examiner. Notably there is nothing on the face of the specification as a whole to suggest that there is an apparent 1:1 relationship between service types and network slices. Nor is there anything within the specification to suggest that the selected network slice is incapable of servicing the request for the first service type.
72.Thus, contrary to the examiner’s assertion, I find that there is sufficient basis in the specification for the proposed amendments. Consequently, the amendments do not seek to add new matter and are therefore allowable.
Conclusion
73.I have found that the proposed amendments are allowable. The examiner’s objection cannot be sustained.
74.As opinion on the grounds of novelty and inventive step was reserved, I refer the application back to examination in order to reassess these grounds and, if warranted, issue another adverse examination report. If not, the application may proceed to acceptance.
75.In the circumstances, pursuant to sub-regulation 13.4(3), the final date to gain acceptance is set at six (6) months from the date of this decision.
Neil Miller
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
1
0