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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 22-24, 26-28, 30-32, and 34-35 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 21-35 are presently pending.
1. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 21-22, 26, 28-30, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 20220132454, hereinafter, “YOUN”) in view of TU et al. (WO 2022052875 A1, hereinafter, “TU”), and further in view of IANEV et al. (US 20230362766, hereinafter, “IANEV”).
Claim 1. YOUN teaches: An access mobility and management function (AMF) entity in a mobile communication system, the AMF entity comprising: - See Fig. 11
a transceiver; - See Fig. 25, ¶ [0837], (“one or more transceivers”) and
a controller coupled with the transceiver, and configured to: - See Fig. 25, ¶ [0837], (“control unit”)
transmit, to a session management function (SMF) entity, a PDU session update request message including the second S-NSSAI, - in ¶ [0488], (“1f) The AMF may perform the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext service…the AMF may send a message related to the PDU session update to the SMF.”) and
receive, from the SMF entity, a PDU session update response message as a response to the PDU session update request message, - See Fig. 11, ¶ [0494 - 0495], (“…the SMF may generate an N1 SM including a PDU session release command message (including a PDU session and a Cause value)…The SMF may respond to the AMF by sending a response message associated with the PDU session update. For example, the SMF may transmit an Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext response message”)
wherein the PDU session update response message includes one of a PDU session modification command message or a PDU session release message according to a session and service continuity (SSC) mode for the PDU session. - in ¶ [0494 - 0495], (“the SMF may generate an N1 SM including a PDU session release command message (including a PDU session and a Cause value). The Cause value may indicate a trigger for establishing a new PDU session having the same characteristics (e.g., when a procedure related to SSC mode 2 is invoked)…The SMF may respond to the AMF by sending a response message associated with the PDU session update”); ¶ [0141 – 0145], (SSC Mode 1, SSC Mode 2, SSC mode 3)
YOUN does not explicitly teach:
receive, from a network entity, a notification message including a first single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) for a first network slice which is unavailable and a second S-NSSAI for a second network slice which is used by the AMF entity to replace the first S-NSSAI,
identify that the first S-NSSAI for the first network slice has to be replaced by the second S-NSSAI for the second network slice based on the notification message,
transmit, to a session management function (SMF) entity, a PDU session update request message including the second S-NSSAI,
However, TU teaches:
receive, from a network entity, a notification message - See Fig. 8, ¶ [0098], (“B6): The NSSF returns a response message to the AMF to obtain network slice information. This response message carries information such as the first NSSAI, the second NSSAI...”) including a first single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) for a first network slice which is unavailable and a second S-NSSAI for a second network slice - See Fig. 3, 8, ¶ [0097], (“B5): The NSSF discovers that some or all of the S-NSSAIs in the second NSSAI are unavailable in the currently accessed AMF…the NSSF maps the part or all of the S-NSSAIs in the second NSSAI that are unavailable in the currently accessed AMF or area to equivalent S-NSSAIs available in the AMF…and replaces the part or all of the S-NSSAIs in the second NSSAI that are unavailable in the currently accessed AMF or area with the mapped S-NSSAIs, forming the first NSSAI (Allowed NSSAI2)…¶ [0098] B6): The NSSF returns a response message to the AMF to obtain network slice information. This response message carries information such as the first NSSAI, the second NSSAI, and their mapping relationship.”) which is used by the AMF entity to replace the first S-NSSAI, - in ¶ [0104], (“B12): The AMF notifies the SMF that the S-NSSAI of its PDU Session has been updated to the second S-NSSAI”)
identify that the first S-NSSAI for the first network slice has to be replaced by the second S-NSSAI for the second network slice based on the notification message, - in ¶ 0098], (“B6): The NSSF returns a response message to the AMF…This response message carries information such as the first NSSAI, the second NSSAI…¶ [0101], (“B9): AMF determines that the first S-NSSAI corresponding to the activated PDU Session is not in the first NSSAI (Allowed NSSAI2)…¶ [0102] B10): AMF replaces the first S-NSSAI of the PDU Session with the corresponding second S-NSSAI in the first NSSAI…¶ [0103] B11): AMF subsequently uses the second S-NSSAI as the S-NSSAI of the activated PDU Session. ¶ [0104] B12): The AMF notifies the SMF that the S-NSSAI of its PDU Session has been updated to the second S-NSSAI.”)
transmit, to a session management function (SMF) entity, a PDU session update request message including the second S-NSSAI, - in ¶ [0104], (“B12): The AMF notifies the SMF that the S-NSSAI of its PDU Session has been updated to the second S-NSSAI…¶ [0105] B13): SMF subsequently uses the second S-NSSAI as the S-NSSAI of the PDU Session to update…”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOUN with TU to include AMF receives slice unavailability notification and replaces the first S-NSSAI for the first network slice with the second S-NSSAI for the second network slice based on the notification, as taught by TU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to maintain session continuity when a network slice becomes unavailable, as suggested by TU, when the first S-NSSAI currently corresponding to the terminal does not belong to the first NSSAI currently allowed to be used by the terminal, determining the second S-NSSAI mapped in the first NSSAI; replacing the first S-NSSAI with the second S-NSSAI. - ¶ [0007]
Combination of YOUN and TU does not explicitly teach:
identify a protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with the first S- NSSAI which is to be transferred to the second S-NSSAI for the second network slice,
However, IANEV teaches:
identify a protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with the first S- NSSAI which is to be transferred to the second S-NSSAI for the second network slice, - See Fig. 7, ¶ [0110], (“the T-AMF 305 may transfer the PDU Session(s) to another alternative S-NSSAI, if available (e.g., S-NSSAI-2)”); ¶ [0069], (“AMF 104 may…let the UE 101 know that the S-NSSAI (e.g., S-NSSAI-3) being used for the PDU Session has been replaced with the New S-NSSAI”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOUN and TU with IANEV to include identify a PDU session for the first S-NSSAI which is to be transferred to the second S-NSSAI for the second network slice, as taught by IANEV. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure service continuity, as suggested by IANEV, This allows for an improved service continuity when the network slice with an active PDU Session is not supported or not allowed in the target cell. - ¶ [0049]
Claim 21. Combination of YOUN, TU, and IANEV teaches The AMF entity of claim 1, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
TU further teaches:
wherein the network entity is one of a network slice network slice selection function (NSSF) entity or a policy control function (PCF) entity. - See Fig. 8, ¶ [0098], (“The NSSF returns a response message to the AMF…carries information such as the first NSSAI, the second NSSAI…”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOUN with TU to include the network entity is a NSSF entity or a PCF entity, as taught by TU. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to maintain session continuity, as suggested by TU, when the first S-NSSAI currently corresponding to the terminal does not belong to the first NSSAI currently allowed to be used by the terminal, replacing the first S-NSSAI with the second S-NSSAI. - ¶ [0007]
Claim 22. Combination of YOUN, TU, and IANEV teaches The AMF entity of claim 1, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
IANEV further teaches:
in case that the PDU session is to be retained, wherein the PDU session modification command message - in ¶ [0068], (“During the PDU Session Modification procedure, when the SMF 104 sends the PDU Session Modification command to the UE 101 via the AMF 104”, session is updated rather than released (eq. retained)) includes a PDU session identifier (ID) and the second S-NSSAI. - in ¶ [0064], (“N2 message (S-NSSAI-1, original S-NSSAI=S-NSSAI-3, alternative S-NSSAI=S-NSSAI-2, NAS message (PDU Session ID, N1 SM container (PDU Session Modification command (New S-NSSAI = S-NSSAI-1)))) - During the PDU Session Modification procedure for replacing the network slice S-NSSAI-1”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOUN and TU with IANEV to include in case that the PDU session is to be retained, the PDU session modification command message includes a PDU session ID and the second S-NSSAI, as taught by IANEV. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure service continuity, as suggested by IANEV, This allows for improved service continuity by transferring the active PDU Session(s) on the current network slice to an alternative network slice thus maintaining the service continuity, instead releasing the PDU Session(s). - ¶ [0051]
Claim 26, 30, 34 are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 22 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claim 28 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claim 29 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 21 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claims 23, 27, 31, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOUN et al. (US 20220132454, hereinafter, “YOUN”) in view of TU et al. (WO 2022052875 A1, hereinafter, “TU”), and further in view of IANEV et al. (US 20230362766, hereinafter, “IANEV”) and Velev et al. (US 20200120589, hereinafter, “Velev”).
Claim 23. Combination of YOUN, TU, and IANEV teaches The AMF entity of claim 1, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
Combination of YOUN, TU, and IANEV does not explicitly teach:
in case that the PDU session is to be re-established, wherein the PDU session update response message includes the second S-NSSAI and information requesting a PDU session re-establishment on the second S-NSSAI.
However, Velev teaches:
in case that the PDU session is to be re-established, - in ¶ [0095], (“the established PDU session may still need to be re-established with another S-NSSAI which is part of the set of stored Allowed S-NSSAIs due to the change in NSI.”) wherein the PDU session update response message includes the second S-NSSAI and information requesting a PDU session re-establishment on the second S-NSSAI. - See Fig. 5, ¶ [0097], (“the first SMF 245 generates and sends an N11 SM Response message to the AMF 135 (see signaling 518). Here, the N11 SM Response message includes N11 information… an N1 SM Information container that contains a PDU Session Release Request message. The PDU Session Release Request message contains…a new set of parameters (e.g., S-NSSAI-b) and an appropriate Cause value…the PDU session can be re-established with the new set of parameters (e.g., new S-NSSAI-b).”); ¶ [0101], (“the SMF 235 indicates that the PDU Session re-establishment should be performed with the new S-NSSAI (see block 526)…the UE 205 re-establishes the PDU Session(s) associated with the old S-NSSAI using the new S-NSSAI (see signaling 528).”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified YOUN, TU, and IANEV with Velev to include in case that the PDU session is to be re-established, the PDU session update response message includes the second S-NSSAI and information requesting a PDU session re-establishment on the second S-NSSAI, as taught by Velev. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure service continuity, as suggested by Velev, when the AMF 135 (and/or NSSF 150) determines that a change of the set of Allowed S-NSSAIs associated with the UE 205 is needed, there are several situations which may occur about the modification of the Set of Network Slice(s) for a UE. - ¶ [0097]
Claim 27, 31, 35 are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 23 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Claims 24-25, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IANEV et al. (US 20230362766, hereinafter, “IANEV”) in view of PARK et al. (US 20200322857, hereinafter, “PARK”), and further in view of YOUN et al. (US 20220132454, hereinafter, “YOUN”).
Claim 24. IANEV teaches: A session management function (SMF) entity in a mobile communication system, the SMF entity comprising: - See Fig. 8, 11, ¶ [0246], (“the SMF 11”)
a transceiver; - See Fig. 11, ¶ [0246], (“the SMF 11…includes a transceiver circuit”) and a controller coupled with the transceiver, and configured to: - See Fig. 11, ¶ [0246], (“the SMF 11…includes…A controller”)
identify a PDU session for a first S-NSSAI associated with a first network slice which is to be transferred to the second S-NS SAI for a second network slice, - See Fig. 7, ¶ [0110], (“the T-AMF 305 may transfer the PDU Session(s) to another alternative S-NSSAI, if available (e.g., S-NSSAI-2)”); ¶ [0069], (“AMF 104 may send the UE Configuration Update message to the UE 101…to let the UE 101 know that the S-NSSAI (e.g., S-NSSAI-3) being used for the PDU Session has been replaced with the New S-NSSAI (e.g., S-NSSAI-1).”)
IANEV does not explicitly teach:
receive, from an access and mobility management (AMF) entity, a protocol data unit (PDU) session update request message including a second single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), and
transmit, to the AMF entity, a PDU session update response message as a response to the PDU session update request message, wherein the PDU session update response message includes one of a PDU session modification command message or a PDU session release message according to a session and service continuity (SSC) mode for the PDU session, and determine whether the PDU session is to be retained or to be re-established, based on the SSC mode.
However, PARK teaches:
receive, from an access and mobility management (AMF) entity, a protocol data unit (PDU) session update request message including a second single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI), - See Fig. 11, ¶ [0331 - 0332], (“the T-AMF may transmit a PDU session update SM context request message to the SMF only for the PDU session ID corresponding to the S-NSSAI determined to be available…the PDU session update SM context request message…to the SMF for the PDU session ID corresponding to/associated with/connected to the corresponding S-NSSAI”) and
transmit, to the AMF entity, a PDU session update response message as a response to the PDU session update request message, wherein the PDU session update response message includes one of a PDU session modification command message or a PDU session release message according to a session and service continuity (SSC) mode for the PDU session, and determine whether the PDU session is to be retained or to be re-established, based on the SSC mode. - See Fig. 11, ¶ [0333], (“the T-AMF may receive a PDU session update SM context response message (corresponds to Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response described above) in response to the PDU session update SM context request message.”) and
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IANEV with PARK to include session management messages, as taught by PARK. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to maintain session continuity by ensuring coordination between the AMF and SMF, as suggested by PARK, the AMF is required to know slice information (e.g., S-NSSAI) corresponding/associated per PDU session. - ¶ [0286]
Combination of IANEV and PARK does not explicitly teach:
wherein the PDU session update response message includes one of a PDU session modification command message or a PDU session release message according to a session and service continuity (SSC) mode for the PDU session, and determine whether the PDU session is to be retained or to be re-established, based on the SSC mode.
However, YOUN teaches:
wherein the PDU session update response message includes one of a PDU session modification command message or a PDU session release message according to a session and service continuity (SSC) mode for the PDU session, - in ¶ [0494 - 0495], (“the SMF may use Nsmf_PDUSession_SMContextStatusNotify to notify the AMF that the PDU session has been released…the SMF may generate an N1 SM including a PDU session release command message (including a PDU session and a Cause value). The Cause value may indicate a trigger for establishing a new PDU session having the same characteristics (e.g., when a procedure related to SSC mode 2 is invoked)…The SMF may respond to the AMF by sending a response message associated with the PDU session update”) and
determine whether the PDU session is to be retained or to be re-established, based on the SSC mode. – in ¶ [0273], (“after the SMF transmits the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext Response, the SMF may perform another procedure to instruct the UE to re-establish the PDU session for SSC mode 2.”); ¶ [0141 – 0145], (SSC Mode 1, SSC Mode 2, SSC mode 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IANEV and PARK with YOUN to include the PDU session update response message includes a PDU session modification command/release message according to a SSC mode for the PDU session, determine whether the PDU session is to be retained or to be re-established based on the SSC mode, as taught by YOUN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve session continuity, as suggested by YOUN, The next-generation mobile communication network provides various modes to support session and service continuity (SSC). - ¶ [0140]
Claim 25. Combination of IANEV, PARK, and YOUN teaches The SMF entity of claim 24, - refer to the indicated claim for reference(s).
IANEV teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to: in case that the PDU session is determined to be retained, – in ¶ [0068], (“During the PDU Session Modification procedure, when the SMF 104 sends the PDU Session Modification command to the UE 101 via the AMF 104”, session is updated rather than released (eq. retained)) transmit, to a user plane function (UPF) entity associated with the PDU session, a N4 message including the second S- NSSAI. – in ¶ [0064], (“N2 message (S-NSSAI-1, original S-NSSAI=S-NSSAI-3, alternative S-NSSAI=S-NSSAI-2, NAS message (PDU Session ID, N1 SM container (PDU Session Modification command (New S-NSSAI = S-NSSAI-1)))) - During the PDU Session Modification procedure for replacing the network slice S-NSSAI-1”)
YOUN further teaches:
transmit, to a user plane function (UPF) entity associated with the PDU session, a N4 message including the second S- NSSAI. – See Fig. 8, ¶ [0257], (“Signaling from SMF to UPF (PSA: PDU session anchor) signaling: SMF may transmit an N4 session modification request to the UPF.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified IANEV and PARK with YOUN to include transmit a N4 message to a UPF entity associated with the PDU session, as taught by YOUN. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve session handling, as suggested by YOUN, the operation of synchronizing the PDU session state of the MA PDU session between the UE and the network node (e.g., AMF, SMF, etc.) is not clearly defined. - ¶ [0005]
Claims 32-33 are rejected under the same rationale as Claims 24-25 since they recite nearly identical limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shima Wasel whose telephone number is (703)756-4725. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SHIMA WASEL/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475