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 .
This Office Action is in response to claim amendment filed on May 01, 2026 and wherein claims 1, 15, 25 and 30 being currently amended.
In virtue of this communication, claims 1-30 are currently pending in this Office Action.
The Office appreciates the explanation of the amendment and analyses of the prior arts, and however, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) and MPEP 2145.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, Pages 11-13, filed on May 01, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 15, 25 and 30 under 35 USC §103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 GUPTA.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
3. Claims 1,4,13-15,17,25,28,30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais et al. (US 20220369219 A1, hereinafter Landais) in view of GUPTA et al. (US 20230180118 A1, hereinafter GUPTA).
Claim 1: Landais teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising (abstract, “A user equipment is configured Process 1 to select an interworking function of the plurality of interworking functions based on information on a site or network slice the user equipment is associated with, of the plurality of sites or network slices”):
one or more processors (Fig.4, element 421);
one or more memories (Fig.4, element 422) coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the one or more memories and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to ([0110], “the example embodiments may be implemented by computer software stored in the memory resources 412, 422 and executable by the processing resources 411, 421, or by hardware, or by a combination of software and/or firmware and hardware”):
receive, from a network device (Fig. 2, [0064], “process 1 is executed using a network entity associated with the SNPN”), a control message comprising an access network node configuration, the access network node (Fig. 2, elements S201, S203, [0065], “In step S201, a plurality of interworking functions (e.g. N3IWFs), which provide
interworking between a communication network acting as an access network (e.g. 3GPP access network, untrusted non-3GPP access network) and a non-public network (e.g. SNPN), is associated with a plurality of sites or network slices hosted by the non-public network”, [0066], “In step S203, a UE is configured to select an interworking function of the plurality of interworking functions based on information on a site or network slice the user equipment is associated with, of the plurality of sites or network slices”, [0077], “the UE is configured with an S-NSSAI including both Slice/Service Type (SST) and Slice Differentiator (SD) … the UE uses at least one of the configured SST and SD for selecting the N3IWF”, [0078],“in step S203 of FIG. 2, the UE is configured with whether TAI and/or SST and/or SD should be used during N3IWF selection for the given SNPN”) and supported by a core network that comprises the set of interworking functions, the core network associated with the network device (Fig. 2, [0078],“in step S203 of FIG. 2, the UE is configured with whether TAI and/or SST and/or SD should be used during N3IWF selection for the given SNPN”, [0076], “3GPP SNPN radio cells on each site of the SNPN may be configured to broadcast a site-specific Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) comprising a PLMN ID and Tracking Area Code … the UE uses the received TAI for selecting the N3IWF”);
select an interworking function from the set of interworking functions based at least in part on a target network slice being indicated in the access network node configuration as associated with the selected interworking function (Fig. 1, element 1b, Fig. 3, element S303, [0070], “an interworking function (e.g. N3IWF), which provides interworking between the communication network acting as an access network and a non-public network (e.g. SNPN), is selected based on information on a site or network slice hosted by the non-public network, wherein the user equipment is associated with the site or network
slice”, [0054], “When the UE decides to attach to 5GC of an SNPN, in step 1b, the UE selects an N3IWF in the SNPN”, [0076], “3GPP SNPN radio cells on each site of the SNPN may be configured to broadcast a site-specific Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) comprising a PLMN ID and Tracking Area Code … the UE uses the received TAI for selecting the N3IWF”);
and transmit a registration message to the selected interworking function (Fig. 1, element step 5, [0060], “the N3IWF selects an AMF based on information received in the authentication in step and local policy. In step 6b, the N3IWF forwards registration request to the selected AMF”, [0096], “The UE will query N3IWF IP address(es) with that FQDN from the DNS of the SNPN, and when needed, establish the IPSec tunnel to the queried N3IWF IP address(es)”) in accordance with a corresponding identifier of the set of identifiers.
However, Landais does not explicitly teach configuration indicating both a set of identifiers corresponding to a set of interworking functions and a set of network slices associated with the set of interworking functions,
the selected interworking function in accordance with a corresponding identifier of the set of identifiers.
GUPTA, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches configuration indicating both a set of identifiers corresponding to a set of interworking functions and a set of network slices associated with the set of interworking functions (Fig. 2A, element 209, [0087], “system may be further configured to initiate a UE registration procedure with the AMF and retrieve the plurality of N3IWF identifiers and the associated at least one S-NSSAI for each of the plurality of N3IWF identifiers to be configured in the UE … The system may be further configured to send the plurality of N3IWF identifiers and the associated at least one S-NSSAI for each of the plurality of N3IWF identifiers in the configuration message to the UE”),
the selected interworking function in accordance with a corresponding identifier of the set of identifiers ((Fig. 2A, element 211, [0085], “ the UE of the system is configured to configure each of a plurality of N3IWF identifiers and associated at least one Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) present in the configuration message … the UE is configured to select a N3IWF identifier from the plurality of N3IWF identifiers based on a user selection of a S-NSSAI for accessing services using the network”, [0091], “makes user aware of the different N3IWFs available in the network, and the network slices to which each N3IWF provides connectivity to … the user having subscription to multiple S-NSSAIs is able to select right N3IWF”).
Landais and GUPTA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of Landais to add the features of indicating a set of identifiers corresponding to a set of interworking functions as taught by GUPTA, for the benefit of allowing the UE to select a right N3IWF identifier from the plurality of N3IWF identifiers based on a user selection of a S-NSSAI for accessing services using the network (paragraph [0011-0013]).
Claim 25 is a method of claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 15: Landais teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a network device (abstract, “provide inter-working between a communication network acting as an access network and a non-public network, is associated with a plurality of sites or network slices hosted by the non-public network”), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig.4, element 411);
one or more memories (Fig.4, element 412) coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the one or more memories and executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to ([0110], “the example embodiments may be implemented by computer software stored in the memory resources 412, 422 and executable by the processing resources 411, 421, or by hardware, or by a combination of software and/or firmware and hardware”):
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a control message comprising an access network node configuration, the access network node configuration (Fig. 2, elements S201, S203, [0065], “In step S201, a plurality of interworking functions (e.g. N3IWFs), which provide
interworking between a communication network acting as an access network (e.g. 3GPP access network, untrusted non-3GPP access network) and a non-public network (e.g. SNPN), is associated with a plurality of sites or network slices hosted by the non-public network”, [0066], “In step S203, a UE is configured to select an interworking function of the plurality of interworking functions based on information on a site or network slice the user equipment is associated with, of the plurality of sites or network slices”, [0077], “the UE is configured with an S-NSSAI including both Slice/Service Type (SST) and Slice Differentiator (SD) … the UE uses at least one of the configured SST and SD for selecting the N3IWF”, [0078],“in step S203 of FIG. 2, the UE is configured with whether TAI and/or SST and/or SD should be used during N3IWF selection for the given SNPN”) and supported by a core network that comprises the set of interworking functions, the core network associated with the network device (Fig. 2, [0078],“in step S203 of FIG. 2, the UE is configured with whether TAI and/or SST and/or SD should be used during N3IWF selection for the given SNPN”, [0076], “3GPP SNPN radio cells on each site of the SNPN may be configured to broadcast a site-specific Tracking Area Identifier (TAI) comprising a PLMN ID and Tracking Area Code … the UE uses the received TAI for selecting the N3IWF”);
and receive, from the UE, a name resolution request message indicating a selected interworking function (Fig. 1, element step 5, [0060], “the N3IWF selects an AMF based on information received in the authentication in step and local policy. In step 6b, the N3IWF forwards registration request to the selected AMF”, [0096], “The UE will query N3IWF IP address(es) with that FQDN from the DNS of the SNPN, and when needed, establish the IPSec tunnel to the queried N3IWF IP address(es)”).
However, Landais does not explicitly teaches configuration indicating both a set of interworking functions and a set of network slices associated with the set of interworking functions,
the selected interworking function based at least in part on an identifier of the set of identifiers corresponding to the selected interworking function.
GUPTA, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches configuration indicating both a set of identifiers corresponding to a set of interworking functions and a set of network slices associated with the set of interworking functions (Fig. 2A, element 209, [0087], “The system may be further configured to send the plurality of N3IWF identifiers and the associated at least one S-NSSAI for each of the plurality of N3IWF identifiers in the configuration message to the UE”),
the selected interworking function in accordance with a corresponding identifier of the set of identifiers corresponding to the selected interworking function ((Fig. 2A, element 211, [0085], “ the UE of the system is configured to configure each of a plurality of N3IWF identifiers and associated at least one Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) present in the configuration message … the UE is configured to select a N3IWF identifier from the plurality of N3IWF identifiers based on a user selection of a S-NSSAI for accessing services using the network”).
Landais and GUPTA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the configuration of Landais to add the features of indicating a set of identifiers corresponding to a set of interworking functions as taught by GUPTA, for the benefit of allowing the UE to select a right N3IWF identifier from the plurality of N3IWF identifiers based on a user selection of a S-NSSAI for accessing services using the network (paragraph [0011-0013]).
Claim 30 is a method of claim 15, and is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15.
Claim 4: Landais teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a name resolution request message indicating the selected interworking function (Fig. 1,[0096], “The UE will query N3IWF IP address(es) with that FQDN from the DNS of the SNPN, and when needed, establish the IPSec tunnel to the queried N3IWF IP address(es)”, [0060], “ the N3IWF selects an AMF based on information received in the authentication in step and local policy”); and receive, in response to the name resolution request message, an indication of an internet protocol address associated with the selected interworking function, wherein the registration message is based at least in part on the internet protocol address associated with the selected interworking function (Fig. 1, elements 7a-11b, [0063], “in step 13, the N3IWF forwards the NAS Registration Accept to UE via the established signaling IPsec SA”, [0061], “signaling IPsec SA is established and authentication is performed between the AMF, an AUSF and the UE”, [0120], “for selecting the interworking function, the apparatus comprises means for including the information on the site or network slice Into a query for an internet protocol address of the interworking function”).
Claim 28 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 25 and claim 4.
Claim 17: Landais teaches the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the UE, , in response to the name resolution request message, an indication of an internet protocol address associated with the selected interworking function (Fig. 1, elements 7a-11b, [0063], “in step 13, the N3IWF forwards the NAS Registration Accept to UE via the established signaling IPsec SA”, [0061], “signaling IPsec SA is established and authentication is performed between the AMF, an AUSF and the UE”, [0120], “for selecting the
interworking function, the apparatus comprises means for including the information on the site or network slice Into a query for an internet protocol address of the
interworking function”).
Claim 13: Landais teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the control message as a non-access stratum message ([0057], “the SNPN network can provide the information on how to build an FQDN for N3IWF selection towards the UE using NAS signaling”).
Claim 14: Landais teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit the registration message to the selected interworking function based at least in part on an internet protocol address associated with the interworking function, wherein the access network node configuration indicates a respective internet protocol address associated with each interworking function of the set of interworking functions ([0096], “The UE will query N3IWF IP address(es) with that FQDN from the DNS of the SNPN, and when needed, establish the IPSec tunnel to the queried N3IWF IP address(es)”, [0120], “for selecting the interworking function, the apparatus comprises means for including the information on the site or network slice into a query for an internet protocol address of the interworking function”).
4. Claims 2-3, 5-11,16,18-23, 24, 26-27,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais et al. (US 20220369219 A1, hereinafter Landais) in view of GUPTA et al. (US 20230180118 A1, hereinafter GUPTA) and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20240205861 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Claim 2: Landais does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: select the interworking function based at least in part on the selected interworking function being associated with a network slice simultaneous registration group including the target network slice, wherein the access network node configuration indicates a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups associated with each interworking function of the set of interworking functions.
However, Wang, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: select the interworking function based at least in part on the selected interworking function being associated with a network slice simultaneous registration group including the target network slice, wherein the access network node configuration indicates a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups associated with each interworking function of the set of interworking functions (Fig. 14, [0259], “The network may label (e.g., explicitly label) that the S-NSSAI is allowed for 3GPP access, non-3GPP access, or both. The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the allowed S-NSSAI may be allowed for the access
network over which the allowed S-NSSAI is received, e.g. if the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the S-NSSAI may be allowed for both access networks, e.g. when the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. The WTRU may store related access network
information for each allowed S-NSSAI. The NW may label the allowed NSSAI for different access networks. The WTRU may indicate in a registration message that the WTRU is capable of or may access NSIs over multiple access network”, [0260], “A WTRU may construct a requested NSSAI from allowed S-NSSAIs for a particular type of access and/or allowed S-NSSAIs for both access networks”).
Landais and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Landais and the features of interworking function being associated with a network slice simultaneous registration group including the target network slice as taught by Wang, for the benefit of traffic steering and/or switching between multiple access networks via multi-access PDU session (paragraph [0003-0004]).
Claim 26 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 25 and claim 2.
Claim 16: Landais does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, with the access network node configuration, a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups associated with each interworking function of the set of interworking functions.
However, Wang, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, with the access network node configuration, a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups associated with each interworking function of the set of interworking functions (Fig. 14, [0259], “The network may label (e.g., explicitly label) that the S-NSSAI is allowed for 3GPP access, non-3GPP access, or both. The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the allowed S-NSSAI may be allowed for the access network over which the allowed
S-NSSAI is received, e.g. if the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the S-NSSAI may be allowed for both access networks, e.g. when the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. The WTRU may store related access network information for each allowed S-NSSAI. The NW may label the allowed NSSAI for different access networks. The WTRU may indicate in a registration message that the WTRU is capable of or may access NSIs over multiple access network”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claim 16.
Claim 3: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: Wang additionally teaches select a second target network slice for concurrent use with the target network slice; select, based at least in part on determining that the interworking function is not associated with the second target network slice, a second interworking function of the set of interworking functions, the second interworking function associated with the target network slice and the second target network slice; and transmit a second registration message indicating the selected second interworking function (Fig. 8, element step 4, [0151], “The WTRU may send a NAS signaling PDU session establishment request over the 3GPP access network
to a serving AMF. In the request message, the WTRU may include an indication for multi-access support and other necessary information (e.g., an N3IWF identifier, area identifier over non-3GPP access network, and/or the like)”, [0292], “A WTRU may receive a new allowed NSSAI list, and may apply the information contained in the allowed NSSAI list to determine which access types are suitable to establish one or more PDU sessions. A WTRU may determine whether established PDU sessions may be transferred across multiple network access types”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claims 3,27.
Claim 27 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 25 and claim 3.
Claim 5: The combination of Landais and GUPTA teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, with the access network node configuration, an indication to add a slicing prefix to a name resolution request message ([0135], “The WTRU may receive a NAS message, … the NAS message may indicate rules and/or policies that govern which flows may be steered across which access technologies. The WTRU may perform a registration over at least one access technology, e.g. non-3GPP access, for which steering is allowed and over which the WTRU is currently not registered”); and transmit, with the name resolution request message, a selected slicing prefix associated with the target network slice ([0135], “The WTRU may send an indication of its support or presence of the local policy and may include the supported access technologies to the CN”, [0139], “The WTRU may include the registration status (e.g., whether the WTRU is registered or not) over the additional access networks in a request message. The WTRU may include the identification of the N3IWF through which the additional access network is connected to the 5G core network in the request message. The WTRU may include the identification of the additional access network, such as the WLAN identifier, in the request message. The WTRU may include the area identification (e.g., the registration area) of the additional access network in the request message. The WTRU may include the identification of the PLMN that the additional access network belongs to in the request message”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claims 5,18,29.
Claim 29 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 25 and claim 5.
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 5.
Claim 6: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 5, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, with the access network node configuration, an indication of prefix mapping information indicating a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups and an associated set of slicing prefixes ([0290], “The AMF may provide a WTRU with a single allowed NSSAI list that contains all S-NSSAI for all applicable network access types. This may be accomplished by associating an network access type or access technology type attribute to every slice instance. In addition, the association of a network slice to a specific network access type, may be accomplished by binding the relevant tracking area to a particular network access type. A WTRU may derive the network access type by looking at the tracking area associated with the network slice”); and select the selected slicing prefix based at least in part on a network slice simultaneous registration group associated with the selected slicing prefix being associated with the target network slice (Fig. 14, [0259], “The network may label (e.g., explicitly label) that the S-NSSAI is allowed for 3GPP access, non-3GPP access, or both. The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the allowed S-NSSAI may be allowed for the access network over which the allowed S-NSSAI is received, e.g. if the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the S-NSSAI may be allowed for both access networks, e.g. when the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. The WTRU may store related access network information for each allowed S-NSSAI. The NW may label the allowed NSSAI for different access networks. The WTRU may indicate in a registration message that the WTRU is capable of or may access NSIs over multiple access network”, [0260], “A WTRU may construct a requested NSSAI from allowed S-NSSAIs for a particular type of access and/or allowed S-NSSAIs for both access networks”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claim 6.
Claim 19: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 18, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, with the access network node configuration, an indication of prefix mapping information indicating a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups and an associated set of slicing prefixes, wherein the selected slicing prefix is based at least in part on a network slice simultaneous registration group associated with the selected slicing prefix being associated with the target network slice ([0290], “The AMF may provide a WTRU with a single allowed NSSAI list that contains all S-NSSAI for all applicable network access types. This may be accomplished by associating an network access type or access technology type attribute to every slice instance. In addition, the association of a network slice to a specific network access type, may be accomplished by binding the relevant tracking area to a particular network access type. A WTRU may derive the network access type by looking at the tracking area associated with the network slice”, [0259], “The network may label (e.g., explicitly label) that the S-NSSAI is allowed for 3GPP access, non-3GPP access, or both. … The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the S-NSSAI may be allowed for both access networks, e.g. when the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI …The NW may label the allowed NSSAI for different access networks”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claim 19.
Claim 7: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 6, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive the indication to add the slicing prefix to the name resolution request message are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive the indication of prefix mapping information (Fig. 14, [0259], “The NW may label the allowed NSSAI for different access networks. The WTRU may indicate in a registration message that the WTRU is capable of or may access NSIs over multiple access network”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claims 7,20.
Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 19 and claim 7.
Claim 8: The combination of Landais and GUPTA teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive a second control message indicating a second set of network slices; and select the target network slice from the second set of network slices based at least in part on a target communication function (Fig. 6, element 4c, Fig. 6A, [0108], “Independent registrations may result in allowed NSSAI lists being independently provided to the WTRU over each AN”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claim 8.
Claim 21: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 15,Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the UE, an access and mobility message indicating a second set of network slices (Fig. 6, element 4c, Fig. 6A, element AMF, [0108], “Independent registrations may result in allowed NSSAI lists being independently provided to the WTRU over each AN”, [0057], “the MME 162 may be responsible for authenticating users of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, bearer activation/deactivation, selecting a particular serving gateway during an initial attach of the WTRUs 102a,102b,
102c”, [0085], “3GPP access and non-3GPP access may be served by an (e.g., single)
AMF if the selected N3IWF is located in the same PLMN as the 3GPP access. If the selected N3IWF is located in a different PLMN, the WTRU may be served by two or more separate PLMNs (e.g., two separate PLMNs) and may have two or more separate AMFs”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claim 21.
Claim 9: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 8, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to receive the second control message are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the second control message in a mobility management message (Fig. 1C, element 162, Fig. 6, element 4c, [0057], “the MME 162 may be responsible for authenticating users of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, bearer activation/deactivation, selecting a particular serving gateway during an initial attach of the WTRUs 102a,102b, 102c”, Fig. 6, element 4c, [0138], “the WTRU may include an indication in the PDU session establishment request message that the PDU session is intended to be carried over one or more additional access networks, e.g., by including an indication in the access type IE in the mobility management (MM) part of the PDU session establishment request message”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claim 9.
Claim 10: The combination of Landais, GUPTA and Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 9, Wang additionally teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, with the second control message, an indication of prefix mapping information indicating a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups and an associated set of slicing prefixes (Fig.6, element 4c, [0290], “The AMF may provide a WTRU with a single allowed NSSAI list that contains all S-NSSAI for all applicable network
access types. This may be accomplished by associating an network access type or access technology type attribute to every slice instance. In addition, the association of a network slice to a specific network access type, may be accomplished by binding the relevant tracking area to a particular network access type”, [0259], “The network may label (e.g., explicitly label) that the S-NSSAI is allowed for 3GPP access, non-3GPP access, or both”); and transmit, with a name resolution request, a selected slicing prefix indicating a network slice simultaneous registration group associated with the target network slice based at least in part on the indication of the prefix mapping information (Fig.6, element 4d, [0259], “The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the S-NSSAI may be allowed for both access networks, e.g. when the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. … The NW may label the allowed NSSAI for different access networks. The WTRU may indicate in a registration message that the WTRU is capable of or may access NSIs over multiple access network”, [0260], “A WTRU may construct a requested NSSAI from allowed S-NSSAIs for a particular type of access and/or allowed S-NSSAIs for both access networks”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claims 10,22.
Claim 22 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 21 and claim 10.
Claim 11: The combination of Landais and GUPTA teaches the apparatus of claim 1, Wang additionally teaches wherein the set of network slices may be used concurrently by the UE, and the set of interworking functions are associated with the set of network slices that may be used concurrently (Fig. 6, [0290], “The AMF may provide a WTRU with a single allowed NSSAI list that contains all S-NSSAI for all applicable network access types. This may be accomplished by associating a network access type or access technology type attribute to every slice instance”, [0259], “The WTRU may (e.g., implicitly) consider that the S-NSSAI may be allowed for both access networks, e.g. when the network does not label (e.g., explicitly label) the S-NSSAI. … The WTRU may indicate in a registration message that the WTRU is capable of or may access NSIs over multiple access network”).
The motivation regarding to the obviousness to claims 2,26 is also applied to claims 11,23.
Claim 23 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 15 and claim 11.
Claim 24: Landais teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit the control message as a non-access stratum message ([0057], “the SNPN network can provide the information on how to build an FQDN for N3IWF selection towards the UE using NAS signaling”).
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landais et al. (US 20220369219 A1, hereinafter Landais) in view of GUPTA et al. (US 20230180118 A1, hereinafter GUPTA) and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20230094211 A1, hereinafter Kim).
Claim 12: Landais does not explicitly teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a home network, an indication of access network node selection information for a roaming network, the access network node selection information indicating prefix mapping information indicating a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups and an associated set of slicing prefixes for the roaming network; receive, from the roaming network, a second control message; and transmit, with a name resolution request message, a selected slicing prefix indicating a network slice simultaneous registration group associated with the target network slice based at least in part on the indication of the prefix mapping information.
However, Kim, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a home network, an indication of access network node selection information for a roaming network, the access network node selection information indicating prefix mapping information indicating a set of network slice simultaneous registration groups and an associated set of slicing prefixes for the roaming network; receive, from the roaming network, a second control message (Fig. 8, element 11, [0263], “The N1N2Message Transfer message may include N1 SM container. The N1 SM container contains the PDU Session Establishment Accept message that the AMF shall provide to the UE. The PDU Session Establishment Accept message includes S-NSSAI from the Allowed NSSAI. For LBO roaming scenario, the PDU Session Establishment Accept message includes the S-NSSAI from the Allowed NSSAI for the VPLMN”, [0285], “The ATSSS feature enables a multi-access PDU connectivity service, which can exchange PDUs between the UE and a data network by simultaneously using one 3GPP access network and one non-3GPP access network and two independent N3/N9 tunnels between the PDU session anchor (PSA) and RAN/AN”); and transmit, with a name resolution request message, a selected slicing prefix indicating a network slice simultaneous registration group associated with the target network slice based at least in part on the indication of the prefix mapping information (Fig. 8, 9, [0286], “The UE may request a MA PDU session when the UE is registered via both 3GPP and non-3GPP accesses, or when the UE is registered via one access only”, [0290], “The signaling flow for a MA PDU session establishment when the UE is not roaming, or when the UE is roaming and the PSA is located in the VPLMN, is based on the signaling flow of the PDU Session Establishment procedure describe above in FIGS. 8 and 9”).
Landais and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Landais and the features of supporting roaming network as taught by Kim, for the benefit of supporting service continuity between a stand-alone non-public network SNPN and a public land mobile network PLMN (paragraph [0007]).
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 YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on 5712723980. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights