DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
On page 2 of their remarks, the Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed invention from Godin, writing, “one skilled in the art would understand Godin is talking about distributed functionalities wherein remapping is done at the base station, not by the core network device” (Applicant Remarks, p. 2).
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even in the passage cited by the applicant, Godin describes the “SMF” and “AMF” as part of “[t]he 5G network”, i.e. the “core network”, as claimed (Godin, 0037). The portions of Godin cited in the non-final rejection dated 12/16/2025 clearly teach that the “SMF 212 is configured to trigger ... the NAS PDU Session Modification Command” and that the “AMF” in Fig. 6 “transmits an updated message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’” (Godin, 0102, 0114, 0117-0118). Therefore, even if Godin describes core network functions that are “distributed” among different base stations as the Applicant claims – which Godin does not actually strictly require – a device executing a core network function such as the SMF or AMF is still a “core network device” by any reasonable definition. Thus, the rejection based on Godin is properly maintained.
Later, on pages 2-4, the Applicant further argues that Godin does not describe a core network performing slice remapping wherein “the third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network” (Remarks, p. 2).
However, Godin was not cited to teach this claim limitation – Park was. The distinction the Applicant attempts to draw between the claimed “third indication information” and the “NAS PDU modification command” in Godin is therefore not relevant to the pending rejection of this limitation (Remarks, p. 4). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Moreover, the “create UE context request message” taught in Park – which corresponds to the claimed “third indication information” – originates from an AMF, a core network function (Park, 0007). The Examiner therefore disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “one skilled in the art would understand Park, similar to Godin, is talking about distributed functionalities wherein remapping is done at base station, not by the core network device” because this is (i) not shown by paragraph 0016 of Park which the Applicant cites and (ii) the distribution of core network functionality across several base stations does not preclude each of them from being rightfully considered a “core network device”. Park also clearly teaches that “the third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice” because it states unambiguously that the “UE context creation request message” includes “S-NSSAI ... corresponding to each PDU session ID” (Park, 0007). Thus, the rejection based on Godin in view of Park is properly maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21-24, 26-30, 32-36, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godin et al. (US 2023/0142879 A1, hereinafter “Godin”) in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0322857 A1, hereinafter “Park”).
As to Claim 21:
Godin describes a method to migrate an existing PDU session to a new network slice.
Specifically, Godin teaches:
Sending, by a core network device, first remapping information to a terminal device by using a NAS message
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions.... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0114, 0117-0118).
Here, “the SMF is configured to trigger towards the user terminal” maps to “sending, by a core network device ... to a terminal”,
“‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”, and
“NAS PDU Session Modification Command” maps to “by using a NAS message”).
The first remapping information comprises an identifier of a first network slice and an identifier of at least one second network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0117-0118).
Here, “‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”,
“slice 10” maps to “an identifier of a first network slice”, and
“slice 11” maps to “an identifier of at least one second network slice”).
The first network slice is a network slice that has been accessed by the terminal device connected to a radio access device
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal” (Godin, 0102).
Here, “end slice 10” maps to “the first network slice is a network slice that has been accessed by the terminal device” because it is clear from context that the terminal has an existing connection to slice 10, and
the connection between the “UE” and the “Node” in Fig. 6 maps to “the terminal device connected to a radio access device”).
The first remapping information indicates the terminal to select a network slice to be accessed from the at least one second network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0117-0118).
Here, “‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”,
“try alternate slice 11” maps to “indicates ... to select a network slice to be accessed”,
“UE” in Fig. 6” maps to “the terminal”, and
“end slice 10” maps to “from the at least one second network slice” because this shows that the terminal has an existing connection to slice 10, so any new outgoing connection attempts will occur from slice 10).
Receiving, by the core network device, third indication information from the terminal device
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6 maps to “receiving ... third indication information”,
the “SMF” in Fig. 6 maps to “the core network device”, and
the “UE” in Fig. 6 maps to “the terminal device”).
The third indication information comprises ... an identifier of a third network slice, and the third network slice is one of at least one second network slice
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6 maps to “the third indication information”,
“slice 11” maps to “an identifier of a third network slice, and the third network slice is one of at least one second network slice”).
Godin does not explicitly disclose:
The third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice
However, Park does describe a method to handover a PDU session to a new AMF.
Specifically, Park teaches:
The third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice
(“[T]he UE context creation request message includes ... Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) corresponding to each PDU session ID” (Park, 0007).
Here, “the UE context creation request message” maps to “the third indication information”,
“includes” maps to “comprises”,
the “S-NSSAI” for the slice corresponding to the older “PDU session” maps to “the identifier of the first network slice”, and
the “S-NSSAI” for the slice corresponding to the newer “PDU session” maps to “an identifier of a third network slice”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Park’s practice of identifying old and new PDU sessions using the identifier of a slice associated with each into Godin’s method for handing over a PDU session. Identifying the old slice and the new slice a session is being remapped to promotes mutual understanding of the intended transition among all of the involved devices.
As to Claim 22:
Godin teaches:
Remapping, by the core network device, a protocol data unit (PDU) session in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal” (Godin, 0102).
Here, “NAS PDU Session Modification” maps to “remapping ... a protocol data unit (PDU) session”,
“the SMF 212” maps to “the core network device”,
“slice 10” maps to “the first network slice”,
“the user terminal” maps to “the terminal device”, and
“alternate slice 11” maps to “the third network slice”).
As to Claim 23:
From the list of:
The third indication information indicates that the terminal device determines to access the third network slice; or
The third indication information indicates the core network device to remap a PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
Godin at least teaches:
The third indication information indicates the core network device to remap a PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6, “est PDU session 4 on slice 11”, maps to “the third indication information indicates ... to remap a PDU session”,
“SMF 212” maps to “the core network device”,
“slice 10” maps to “the first network slice”,
“UE 200” maps to “the terminal device”, and
“slice 11” maps to “the third network slice”).
As to Claim 24:
Godin teaches:
Sending, by the core network device, the first remapping information to the terminal device when a first condition is satisfied
(“Fig. 6 is a signalling chart illustrating an example. Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions. This may happen to overcome overload situations” (Godin, 0114).
Here, element 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “sending ... the first remapping information”,
“SMF 212” maps to “the core network device”,
“UE 200” maps to “the terminal device”, and
“to overcome overload situations” maps to “when a first condition is satisfied”).
The first condition is that information about the network status of the first network slice indicates that the network resource of the first network slice is insufficient or load of the first network slice is excessively heavy
(“Fig. 6 is a signalling chart illustrating an example. Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions. This may happen to overcome overload situations” (Godin, 0114).
Here, “to overcome overload situations” maps to “the first condition is that information about the network status of the first network slice indicates that the network resource of the first network slice is insufficient or load of the first network slice is excessively heavy”).
As to Claim 26:
Godin does not explicitly disclose:
The core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)
However, Park does teach:
The core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)
(“[A] method for supporting a User Equipment (UE) handover of a Target-Access and Mobility Management Function (T-AMF) in a wireless communication may include receiving, from a Source-AMF (S-AMF), a create UE context request message” (Park, 0007).
Here, “a Target-Access and Management Function (T-AMF)” maps to “the network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Godin’s method for handing over a PDU session by executing handover at an AMF, as described in Park. The AMF is another device in the core network that can handle PDU session handover, so it would be obvious to shift this function to the AMF as an alternative to using the SMF, as taught in Godin.
As to Claim 27:
Godin teaches:
The identifier of the network slice is a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)
(“Slices are identified by Single-Network Slice Assistance Information, S-NSSAI” (Godin, 0043).
Here, “S-NSSAI” maps to “the identifier of the network slice is a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)”).
As to Claim 28:
Godin teaches:
Receiving, by a terminal device, first remapping information from a core network by using a non-access stratum (NAS) message
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions.... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0114, 0117-0118).
Here, “the SMF is configured to trigger towards the user terminal” maps to “receiving, by a terminal device ... from a core network”,
“‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”, and
“NAS PDU Session Modification Command” maps to “by using a non-access stratum (NAS) message”).
The first remapping information comprises an identifier of a first network slice and an identifier of at least one second network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0117-0118).
Here, “‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”,
“slice 10” maps to “an identifier of a first network slice”, and
“slice 11” maps to “an identifier of at least one second network slice”).
The first network slice is a network slice that has been accessed by the terminal connected to a radio access device
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal” (Godin, 0102).
Here, “end slice 10” maps to “the first network slice is a network slice that has been accessed by the terminal” because it is clear from context that the terminal has an existing connection to slice 10, and
the connection between the “UE” and the “Node” in Fig. 6 maps to “the terminal connected to a radio access device”).
The first remapping information indicates the terminal to select a network slice to be accessed from the at least one second network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0117-0118).
Here, “‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”,
“try alternate slice 11” maps to “indicates ... to select a network slice to be accessed”,
“UE” in Fig. 6” maps to “the terminal”, and
“end slice 10” maps to “from the at least one second network slice” because this shows that the terminal has an existing connection to slice 10, so any new outgoing connection attempts will occur from slice 10).
Sending, by the terminal device, third indication information to the core network device
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6 maps to “sending ... third indication information”,
the “SMF” in Fig. 6 maps to “the core network device”, and
the “UE” in Fig. 6 maps to “the terminal device”).
The third indication information comprises ... an identifier of a third network slice, and the third network slice is one of at least one second network slice
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6 maps to “the third indication information”,
“slice 11” maps to “an identifier of a third network slice, and the third network slice is one of at least one second network slice”).
Godin does not explicitly disclose:
The third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice
However, Park does teach:
The third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice
(“[T]he UE context creation request message includes ... Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) corresponding to each PDU session ID” (Park, 0007).
Here, “the UE context creation request message” maps to “the third indication information”,
“includes” maps to “comprises”,
the “S-NSSAI” for the slice corresponding to the older “PDU session” maps to “the identifier of the first network slice”, and
the “S-NSSAI” for the slice corresponding to the newer “PDU session” maps to “an identifier of a third network slice”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Park’s practice of identifying old and new PDU sessions using the identifier of a slice associated with each into Godin’s method for handing over a PDU session. Identifying the old slice and the new slice a session is being remapped to promotes mutual understanding of the intended transition among all of the involved devices.
As to Claim 29:
From the list of:
The third indication information indicates that the terminal device determines to access the third network slice; or
The third indication information indicates the core network device to remap a PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
Godin at least teaches:
The third indication information indicates the core network device to remap a PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6, “est PDU session 4 on slice 11”, maps to “the third indication information indicates ... to remap a PDU session”,
“SMF 212” maps to “the core network device”,
“slice 10” maps to “the first network slice”,
“UE 200” maps to “the terminal device”, and
“slice 11” maps to “the third network slice”).
As to Claim 30:
Godin teaches:
Information about the network status of the first network slice indicates that the network resource of the first network slice is insufficient or load of the first network slice is excessively heavy
(“Fig. 6 is a signalling chart illustrating an example. Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions. This may happen to overcome overload situations” (Godin, 0114).
Here, “overload situations” maps to “information about the network status of the first network slice indicates that the network resource of the first network slice is insufficient or load of the first network slice is excessively heavy”).
As to Claim 32:
Godin does not explicitly disclose:
The core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)
However, Park does teach:
The core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)
(“[A] method for supporting a User Equipment (UE) handover of a Target-Access and Mobility Management Function (T-AMF) in a wireless communication may include receiving, from a Source-AMF (S-AMF), a create UE context request message” (Park, 0007).
Here, “a Target-Access and Management Function (T-AMF)” maps to “the network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Godin’s method for handing over a PDU session by executing handover at an AMF, as described in Park. The AMF is another device in the core network that can handle PDU session handover, so it would be obvious to shift this function to the AMF as an alternative to using the SMF, as taught in Godin.
As to Claim 33:
Godin teaches:
The identifier of the network slice is a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)
(“Slices are identified by Single-Network Slice Assistance Information, S-NSSAI” (Godin, 0043).
Here, “S-NSSAI” maps to “the identifier of the network slice is a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)”).
As to Claim 34:
Godin teaches:
At least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium including computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus
(“The processing system, controller, or the circuitry is controlled by a sequence of program instructions transferred to the CPU from the RAM” (Godin, 0129).
Here, “the CPU” maps to “at least one processor”,
“the RAM” maps to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”,
“from” maps to “including”,
“instructions” map to “computer-executable instructions”, and
“controlled by” maps to “when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus”).
Receive first remapping information from a core network by using a NAS message
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions.... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0114, 0117-0118).
Here, “the SMF is configured to trigger towards the user terminal” maps to “receive ... from a core network”,
“‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”, and
“NAS PDU Session Modification Command” maps to “by using a NAS message”).
The first remapping information comprises an identifier of a first network slice and an identifier of at least one second network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0117-0118).
Here, “‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”,
“slice 10” maps to “an identifier of a first network slice”, and
“slice 11” maps to “an identifier of at least one second network slice”).
The first network slice is a network slice that has been accessed by the terminal connected to a radio access device
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal” (Godin, 0102).
Here, “end slice 10” maps to “the first network slice is a network slice that has been accessed by the terminal” because it is clear from context that the terminal has an existing connection to slice 10, and
the connection between the “UE” and the “Node” in Fig. 6 maps to “the terminal connected to a radio access device”).
The first remapping information indicates the terminal to select a network slice to be accessed from the at least one second network slice
(“In reaction to step 520 [in Fig. 5], the SMF 212 is configured to trigger towards the user terminal the NAS PDU Session Modification Command ‘Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value), end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE toward the user terminal ... AMF [in Fig. 6] transmits an update message to SMF including the new indicators ‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ in an Update message 606. Receiving these new indicators prompts the SMF to trigger the SSC mode 3 608, 610, 612 as with Fig. 5” (Godin, 0102, 0117-0118).
Here, “‘end slice 10, try alternate slice 11’ Information Element IE” in message 608 in Fig. 6 maps to “first remapping information”,
“try alternate slice 11” maps to “indicates ... to select a network slice to be accessed”,
“UE” in Fig. 6” maps to “the terminal”, and
“end slice 10” maps to “from the at least one second network slice” because this shows that the terminal has an existing connection to slice 10, so any new outgoing connection attempts will occur from slice 10).
Send third indication information to the core network device
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6 maps to “sending ... third indication information”,
the “SMF” in Fig. 6 maps to “the core network device”, and
the “UE” in Fig. 6 maps to “the terminal device”).
The third indication information comprises ... an identifier of a third network slice, and the third network slice is one of at least one second network slice
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6 maps to “the third indication information”,
“slice 11” maps to “an identifier of a third network slice, and the third network slice is one of at least one second network slice”).
Godin does not explicitly disclose:
The third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice
However, Park does teach:
The third indication information comprises the identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of a third network slice
(“[T]he UE context creation request message includes ... Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) corresponding to each PDU session ID” (Park, 0007).
Here, “the UE context creation request message” maps to “the third indication information”,
“includes” maps to “comprises”,
the “S-NSSAI” for the slice corresponding to the older “PDU session” maps to “the identifier of the first network slice”, and
the “S-NSSAI” for the slice corresponding to the newer “PDU session” maps to “an identifier of a third network slice”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Park’s practice of identifying old and new PDU sessions using the identifier of a slice associated with each into Godin’s method for handing over a PDU session. Identifying the old slice and the new slice a session is being remapped to promotes mutual understanding of the intended transition among all of the involved devices.
As to Claim 35:
From the list of:
The third indication information indicates that the terminal device determines to access the third network slice; or
The third indication information indicates the core network device to remap a PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
Godin at least teaches:
The third indication information indicates the core network device to remap a PDU session, in the first network slice, of the terminal device to the third network slice
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, element 610 in Fig. 6, “est PDU session 4 on slice 11”, maps to “the third indication information indicates ... to remap a PDU session”,
“SMF 212” maps to “the core network device”,
“slice 10” maps to “the first network slice”,
“UE 200” maps to “the terminal device”, and
“slice 11” maps to “the third network slice”).
As to Claim 36:
Godin teaches:
Information about the network status of the first network slice indicates that the network resource of the first network slice is insufficient or load of the first network slice is excessively heavy
(“Fig. 6 is a signalling chart illustrating an example. Fig. 6 is not related to handover, instead the example describes a case where a serving radio access node is configured to remap a given slice to another slice for corresponding PDU sessions. This may happen to overcome overload situations” (Godin, 0114).
Here, “overload situations” maps to “information about the network status of the first network slice indicates that the network resource of the first network slice is insufficient or load of the first network slice is excessively heavy”).
As to Claim 38:
Godin teaches:
The identifier of the network slice is a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)
(“Slices are identified by Single-Network Slice Assistance Information, S-NSSAI” (Godin, 0043).
Here, “S-NSSAI” maps to “the identifier of the network slice is a single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI)”).
As to Claim 39:
Godin does not explicitly disclose:
The core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)
However, Park does teach:
The core network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)
(“[A] method for supporting a User Equipment (UE) handover of a Target-Access and Mobility Management Function (T-AMF) in a wireless communication may include receiving, from a Source-AMF (S-AMF), a create UE context request message” (Park, 0007).
Here, “a Target-Access and Management Function (T-AMF)” maps to “the network device is an access and mobility management function (AMF)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Godin’s method for handing over a PDU session by executing handover at an AMF, as described in Park. The AMF is another device in the core network that can handle PDU session handover, so it would be obvious to shift this function to the AMF as an alternative to using the SMF, as taught in Godin.
As to Claim 40:
Godin teaches:
The communication apparatus is a terminal device
(Fig. 6 in Godin shows an example PDU session remapping.
Here, “UE 200” maps to “the communication apparatus is a terminal device”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Srivistava et al. (US 2021/0321325 A1) describes a method to migrate a PDU session to a new slice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477