DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Abstract submitted on 17 September 2025 has been considered and is acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 17 September 2025.
Regarding Previous Abstract Objection
Previous objection to the Abstract has been withdrawn in view of the filing of a new Abstract outlined above.
Regarding Previous Claim Objections
Previous objection to claims 1-3, 7, 12 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 8, 13] with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on page 8, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “the session request message transmitted by the UE comprises a DNN and S-NSSAI”.
Newly found reference Qiao discloses a system (Fig. 1) where SMF receives from UE a PDU session request comprising DNN and S-NSSAI [Paragraph 331].
Regarding claim 12, this claim has been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and is rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 9-12] with respect to rejection of claims 3 and 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-7, 12 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-9 and 12 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 3:
At line 9, it is unclear whether it should be “the generating the response”, as per previous recitation of this limitation.
For claim 4:
At line 1, “the step” lacks of antecedent basis.
For claim 6:
At line 8, it is unclear whether it should be “the at least first allowed service”.
For claim 7:
At line 2, it is unclear whether it should be “the at least first allowed”.
For claim 9:
At line 1, the claim appears to be an independent claim. However, at line 3, the claim is depending upon claim 1. Hence, it is unclear whether this claim is an independent or a dependent claim. Although Applicant stated that this claim is a dependent claim, the claim should be rewritten accordingly.
For claims 4-5 and 7-8:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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 1-2, 9, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mary et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0104296) in view of Qiao et al. Mary et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0267786).
Regarding claim 1, Mary teaches a method performed by a session management function (SMF) (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
the SMF receiving a session request message transmitted by a user equipment (UE) (UE transmitting session request to SMF [Paragraph 34-35, 47-50, 52-54, 84, 104]), [
after receiving the session request message [(SMF transmitting policy message to PCF [Paragraphs 84, 123, 125]) that includes:
i) the DNN and S-NSSAI pair from the session request message ([Paragraphs 50, 104, 125]),
ii) information indicating that a user plane for a packet data unit (PDU) session for the DNN and S-NSSAI pair is redundancy capable ([Paragraph 125]), and/or
iii) subscription information for the UE that indicates that the subscriber is allowed to have redundant transmissions ([Paragraph 100]).
However, Mary does not explicitly mention: wherein the session request message transmitted by the UE comprises a data network name (DNN) and single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) pair… transmitted by the UE.
Qiao teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the session request message transmitted by the UE comprises a data network name (DNN) and single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) pair… transmitted by the UE (Qiao discloses a system (Fig. 1) where SMF receives from UE a PDU session request comprising DNN and S-NSSAI [Paragraph 331]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Mary) by transmitting by the UE DNN and SNSSAI (as taught by Qiao) for the purpose of properly initiation PDU sessions (Qiao – Paragraph 330).
Regarding claim 2, Mary further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the SMF determines that the user plane for the PDU session is redundancy capable based on information indicating RAN capabilities, information indicating UPF capabilities, and the DNN and S-NSSAI pair ([Paragraphs 50, 63, 85, 116]).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
November 22, 2025
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights