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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 31, 2025 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, claims 16-30 have been canceled. Claims 31-38 have been newly added.
Applicant’s new claims address the informalities to overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed August 01, 2025.
Claims 31-38 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 31, 2025 regarding claims 27 have been fully considered but the arguments are essentially directed towards the newly introduced limitations and they are addressed in this Office Action, below.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (US 20220360996 A1), hereinafter Luo, in view of Mas Rosique et al. (US 20200053636 A1), hereinafter Mas Rosique, and further in view of Gao et al. (US 20230054288 A1), hereinafter Gao.
Regarding Claim 31, Luo discloses A method, (¶0229 FIG. 10 is a schematic flowchart of a network slice redirection method) comprising:
receiving, by an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) from a User Equipment (UE), an establishment request message related to a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session; (Luo ¶0229 FIG. 10 is a schematic flowchart of a network slice redirection method applied to interaction between a terminal device, a serving RAN device, and a CN (¶0245 the CN device may be an AMF). ¶0230 S1001: A terminal device sends a first NAS request to a CN device (AMF) ¶0092 the first NAS request message is a PDU session establishment request message including the corresponding network slice identifier that the terminal device requests to establish)
wherein the establishment request message includes a Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI), (Luo ¶0092 the first NAS request message is a PDU session establishment request message including the corresponding network slice identifier ¶0074 Network slice identifier: Currently, 3GPP SA2 defines single network slice selection assistance information, S-NSSAI to identify one network slice that the terminal device requests to establish)
determining, by the AMF, that the S-NSSAI is to be replaced with an alternative S- NSSAI; (Luo Fig. 10, ¶¶0232-0234 at step S1002, CN device detects that the serving cell does not support a network slice requested by the terminal device, and performs network slice redirection decision-making and perform network slice remapping)
transmitting, by the AMF, the alternative S-NSSAI to the UE; (Luo Fig. 10, ¶0254 The CN (AMF) sends first NAS response message including network slice remapping information (includes an identifier of a network slice to which the original network slice is remapped) to the UE via the RAN device (¶0239 step S1004)) and
Though Luo discloses determining slice remapping for the PDU session request (Fig. 10), Luo does not explicitly disclose selecting SMF for the remapped slice:
selecting, by the AMF, a Session Management Function (SMF) supporting network slice replacement;
transmitting, by the AMF, the alternative S-NSSAI to the selected SMF.
Mas Rosique, however, discloses:
selecting, by the AMF, a Session Management Function (SMF) supporting network slice replacement; (Mas Rosique Fig. 4, ¶0039 2A. Concerning SMF selection, the AMF sends a request to the NRF to retrieve a list of SMFs that supports the (selected) slice corresponding for this PDU Session. ¶¶0043, 0044] 2A-3, 2A-4 The AMF selects an SMF to support this PDU Session out of the SMF identities provided by NRF based on selection criteria. For example, if an SMF, based on the extended information from NRF, supports several of the network slices allowed in the UE subscription, AMF may prefer to select this SMF over an SMF that only supports a single or fewer subscribed network slices)
transmitting, by the AMF, the alternative S-NSSAI to the selected SMF. (Mas Rosique Fig. 3, ¶0047 discloses after SMF selection From AMF to SMF: SM Request (… S-NSSAI, PDU Session ID, AMF ID, … SM NAS information etc.) – this indicates AMF transmits selected S-NSSAI for the PDU context)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Luo with SMF selection procedures as taught by Mas Rosique. Doing so allows an optimized match of AMF, SMF and network slices, selecting a SMF that can support a PDU session. (Mas Rosique ¶0019)
Though Mas Rosique discloses AMF getting extended information about each SMF from NRF and select the SMF supporting allowed slices (for replacement/remapping) (Fig. 4, ¶¶0043, 0044), Luo and Mas Rosique do not explicitly disclose the SMF supporting slice remapping:
selecting, by the AMF, a Session Management Function (SMF) supporting network slice replacement;
transmitting, by the AMF, the alternative S-NSSAI to the selected SMF.
Gao, however, discloses:
selecting, by the AMF, a Session Management Function (SMF) supporting network slice replacement; (Gao Fig. 4, ¶0123 At step 416, the AMF or SMF identified that the serving slice is not supported at the target gNB but can be remapped to another slice supported at the target gNB. The AMF or SMF perform slice remapping (indicates SMF supporting slice replacement)
transmitting, by the AMF, the alternative S-NSSAI to the selected SMF. (Gao ¶0159 discloses the AMF may forward the remapped slice information to the SMF.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Luo, and Mas Rosique with SMF supporting slice replacement as taught by Gao. Doing so allows supporting service continuity during handover by taking the supported slice into consideration. (Gao ¶0057)
Regarding Claim 32, Luo, Mas Rosique, and Gao disclose the method of claim 31. Luo discloses the AMF can select the alternative slice, and Gao and Mas Rosique further disclose:
wherein the step of selecting the SMF is performed based on information about SMFs supporting network slice replacement and information about a list of network slices that each of the SMFs can support. (Gao Fig. 4, ¶0123 discloses SMF can support slice replacement. Mas Rosique Fig. 4 ¶0039] 2A. Concerning SMF selection, the AMF sends a request to the NRF to retrieve a list of SMFs that supports the selected Slice ID (e.g. S-NSSAI). ¶¶0040, 0042 2A-1 The AMF may request for extended information about the SMFs, … the reply from the NRF contains information about which other slices, that are supported by the SMF. ¶0043 2A-3. The AMF selects an SMF to support this PDU Session out of the SMF identities provided by NRF. ¶0044 if an SMF, based on the extended information from NRF, supports several of the network slices allowed in the UE subscription, AMF may prefer to select this SMF over an SMF that only supports a single or fewer subscribed DNNs/network slices. Therefore, in combination Gao and Mas Rosique teaches the AMF can select the SMF based on the slice support information from the NRF)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Luo, and Gao with SMF selection procedures as taught by Mas Rosique. Doing so allows an optimized match of AMF, SMF and network slices, selecting a SMF that can support a PDU session. (Mas Rosique ¶0019)
Regarding Claim 33, Luo, Mas Rosique, and Gao disclose the method of claim 32. Mas Rosique further discloses:
wherein the information about SMFs and the information about the list of network slices are obtained, by the AMF, from a Network Repository Function (NRF). (Mas Rosique Fig. 4 ¶0039] 2A. Concerning SMF selection, the AMF sends a request to the NRF to retrieve a list of SMFs that supports the selected Slice ID (e.g. S-NSSAI). ¶¶0040, 0042 2A-1 The AMF may request for extended information about the SMFs, … the reply from the NRF contains information about which other slices, that are supported by the SMF.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Luo, and Gao with SMF selection procedures as taught by Mas Rosique. Doing so allows an optimized match of AMF, SMF and network slices, selecting a SMF that can support a PDU session. (Mas Rosique ¶0019)
Regarding Claim 34, Luo, Mas Rosique, and Gao disclose the method of claim 31. Mas Rosique, and Gao further disclose:
wherein the alternative S-NSSAI is transmitted, to the SMF, with a request for context for the PDU session. (Mas Rosique Fig. 3, ¶0047 discloses after SMF selection From AMF to SMF: SM Request (… S-NSSAI, PDU Session ID, AMF ID, … SM NAS information etc.) – this indicates AMF transmits selected S-NSSAI for the PDU context. Gao ¶0159 discloses the AMF may forward the remapped slice information to the SMF.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Luo, and Mas Rosique with SMF supporting slice replacement as taught by Gao. Doing so allows supporting service continuity during handover by taking the supported slice into consideration. (Gao ¶0057)
Regarding Claims 35-38, Luo discloses An Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), (Luo ¶0229 FIG. 10 discloses a CN (¶0245 the CN device may be an AMF) comprising:
at least one memory; (¶0272 FIG. 16 memory 1603) and
at least one processor operably connectable to the at least one memory, (¶0272 FIG. The processor 1601 connected with memory 1603)
wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: (¶0272 FIG. The processor 1601 is configured to execute the instructions stored in the memory 1603).
The claims are directed to apparatus claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claims 31-34. Therefore, claims 35-38 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claims 31-34.
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 MOHAMMED NIAMUL HUDA KHAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-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, Rebecca Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/M.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2417 /REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417