DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
I. 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
II. This action is in response to applicants amendment/arguments filed on March 24, 2026. This action is made FINAL.
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.
III. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019).
Regarding claim 1 You teaches obtaining, by a first network device, a second key in response to determining that the information about the first slice does not match information about a second slice that the user equipment requests to access (see paragraphs [0121] & [0122] -[0124] and Fig. 11, The slice 2 checks the information from the AN including the service identifier and slice key 1 and if the information does not match with the service range of slice 2, the slice 2 rejects the slice request message. The slice 2 then allocates a slice 2 user temporary identifier to the user and transmits an authentication request to the user authentication center. The user authentication center calculates slice 2 keys, and sends them to the UE via the AN so that the UE may be attached to the slice 2. This reads on obtaining, by the first network device, a second key in response to determining that the information about the first slice does not match information about a second slice that the user equipment requests to access), wherein the second key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the second slice or information in a process in which the user equipment accesses the second slice (see paragraphs [0076] & [0122] - [0124] and Fig. 11, A key corresponding to the network slice can be derived according to a received slice identifier. The key is used by the UE to attach to the to the network slice. This reads on wherein the second key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the second slice or information in a process in which the user equipment accesses the second slice).
You does not teach the first network device that is a first access and mobility management function (AMF) and receiving, by the first network device that is a first access and mobility management function (AMF), information about a first slice of user equipment from a second AMF that is different from the first AMF; and obtaining, by the first network device the second key.
Wifvesson teaches receiving, by a first network device that is a first access and mobility management function (AMF), information about a first slice of user equipment from a second AMF that is different from the first AMF (see paragraph [0022], The first network element may include a Target AMF, the second network element may include am Initial AMF, and the UE context is directly related to slice information. An initial AMF transfers UE security context to a target AMF via a default AMF. This reads on receiving, by a first network device that is a first access and mobility management function (AMF), information about a first slice of user equipment from a second AMF that is different from the first AMF); and obtaining by the first network device, the second key (see paragraph [0022], The derived key is transferred to the Target AMF. This reads on obtaining by the first network device, the second key).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the network device in You adapt to a first access and mobility management function (AMF) and receiving, by the first network device that is a first access and mobility management function (AMF), information about a first slice of user equipment from a second AMF that is different from the first AMF; and obtaining, by the first network device the second key because AMF is well-known to include functionality for receiving information about slice information requested by UE.
IV. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019), and Wu (US 2018/0368039 A).
Regarding claim 2 You and Wifvesson teach the method according to claim 1 except for wherein the information about the first slice comprises an attribute of the first slice, and the information about the second slice comprises an attribute of the second slice; and the obtaining, by the first network device, a second key in response to determining that the information about the first slice does not match information about a second slice that the user equipment requests to access comprises: obtaining, by the first network device, the second key in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice.
Wu teaches wherein the information about the first slice comprises an attribute of the first slice, and the information about the second slice comprises an attribute of the second slice (see paragraphs [0019]; [0031]; [0034], A S-NSSAI identifies a network slice. The S-NSSAU comprises a Slice/Service type (SST) and a Slice Differentiator (SD). There can be First S-NSSAI with first SD and Second S-NSSAI with second SD. This reads on wherein the information about the first slice comprises an attribute of the first slice, and the information about the second slice comprises an attribute of the second slice); and determining that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice (see paragraph [0034], The First S-NSSAI and the Second S-NSSAU can have different SDs. This reads on determining that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the information about the first slice in the You and Wifvesson combination comprises an attribute of the first slice, and the information about the second slice in You comprises an attribute of the second slice because it is well-known that slice information such as the slice information in the You and Wifvesson combination contains SST and SD attribute information to indicate the expected network slice behavior, features and services (Wu, paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the obtaining, by the first network device, a second key in response to determining that the information about the first slice does not match information about a second slice that the user equipment requests to access in the You and Wifvesson combination adapt to include obtaining, by the first network device, the second key in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice because the first slice and the second slice having different attributes would indicate that a new security context would be required for registration in the same way as the first and second slice with different service information in You (see Wu, above).
V. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019), and Arkko et al. (WO 2019/106451 A1).
Regarding claim 3 You and Wifvesson teach the method according to claim 1 except for wherein the obtaining, by the first network device, a second key comprises: generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice.
Arkko teaches obtaining, by the first network device, a second key comprises: generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice (see paragraph [0062], A first key can be used as an input to derive a new key Kamf. The key Kamf is the root key used between the UE and the AMF to derive security keys for the network service/slice. This reads on obtaining, by the first network device, a second key comprises: generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the obtaining, by the first network device, a second key in the You and Wifvesson combination adapt to include generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice because it is well known that a first key can be used to derive a second key for the purposes of deriving security keys as taught in Arkko above.
Regarding claim 5 You teaches the method according to claim 1 including wherein the performing, by the first network device, a second key comprises: performing, by the first network device, re-authentication on the user equipment (see You, paragraphs [0121] [0124] and Fig. 11, When the UE moves or when the UE needs to implement other services the UE transmits a second attach request (S926, Fig. 11) requiring a second authentication to derive a key for the other slice. This reads on wherein the performing, by the first network device, a second key comprises: performing, by the first network device, re-authentication on the user equipment) and except for generating, by the first network device, the second key in response to determining that the re-authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds.
Arkko teaches generating a key in response to determining that the authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds (see paragraph [0064] and Fig. 3, The serving network may transmit a message indicating a result of the authentication of the UE. Along with the result of the authentication of the UE the message may include or more keys may be derived in response to the authentication (see steps 314 & 316, Fig. 3). This reads on generating a key in response to determining that the authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make generating, by the first network device, the second key the You and Wifvesson combination adapt to include generating the second key in response to determining that the re-authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds because it is well known that security keys for network services are provided to the UE after the UE is authenticated as described in Arkko above.
VI. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019), Arkko et al. (WO 2019/106451 A1), and Park et al. (US 2019/0053120 A1).
Regarding claim 4 You, Wifvesson and Arkko teach wherein the generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key comprises: generating, by the first network device, the second key based on the first key (see Arkko, paragraph [0062], A first key can be used as an input to derive a new key Kamf. The key Kamf is the root key used between the UE and the AMF to derive security keys for the network service/slice. This reads on wherein the generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key comprises: generating, by the first network device, the second key based on the first key) and except for generating the second key in response to determining that an isolation requirement of the first slice is higher than an isolation requirement of the second slice.
Park teaches determining that an isolation requirement of the first slice is higher than an isolation requirement of the second slice (see paragraph [0128], A resource isolation between different network slices can be provided. A base station may provide a reliable service for a first slice if a second slice is in a high load status. The resources being isolated for the first slice indicates an isolation requirement of the first slice is higher and reads on determining that an isolation requirement of the first slice is higher than an isolation requirement of the second slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key in the You, Wifvesson and Arkko combination adapt to include generating the second key in response to determining that an isolation requirement of the first slice is higher than an isolation requirement of the second slice because it would provide dynamic operations for a wireless device that requires service of one or more slices, thereby improving user experience (see Park, paragraph [0128]).
Regarding claim 6 You, Wifvesson and Arkko teach wherein the performing, by the first network device, re-authentication on the user equipment comprises: performing, by the first network device, network re-authentication on the user equipment (see You, paragraphs [0121] [0124] and Fig. 11, When the UE moves or when the UE needs to implement other services the UE transmits a second attach request (S926, Fig. 11) requiring a second authentication to derive a key for the other slice. This reads on wherein the performing, by the first network device, re-authentication on the user equipment comprises: performing, by the first network device, network re-authentication on the user equipment) and except for network re-authentication in response to determining that an isolation requirement of the first slice is lower than an isolation requirement of the second slice.
Park teaches determining that an isolation requirement of a first slice (second slice in Park) is lower than an isolation requirement of a second slice (first slice in Park) (see paragraph [0128], A resource isolation between different network slices can be provided. A base station may provide a reliable service for a first slice if a second slice is in a high load status. The resources being isolated for the first slice indicates an isolation requirement of the second slice is lower and reads on determining that an isolation requirement of a first slice is lower than an isolation requirement of a second slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the performing, by the first network device, network re-authentication on the user equipment in the You, Wifvesson and Arkko combination adapt to include network re-authentication in response to determining that an isolation requirement of the first slice is lower than an isolation requirement of the second slice because it would provide dynamic operations for a wireless device that requires service of one or more slices, thereby improving user experience (see Park, paragraph [0128]).
VII. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019), Wu (US 2018/0368039 A) and Li et al. (US 2022/0159605 A1, including Provisional Application No. 62/931,376, filed on Nov. 6, 2019).
Regarding claim 7 You, Wifvesson, and Wu teach the method according to claim 2 except for wherein that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice comprises at least one of the following: the attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute; the attribute of the first slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same slice/service type (SST), wherein an SST of the attribute of the second slice is different from an SST of the attribute of the first slice; the attribute of the second slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same SST, wherein an SST of the attribute of the first slice is different from an SST of the attribute of the second slice; the attribute of the first slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same slice differentiator (SD), wherein an SD of the attribute of the second slice is different from an SD of the attribute of the first slice; or the attribute of the second slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same slice differentiator SD, wherein an SD of the attribute of the first slice is different from an SD of the attribute of the second slice.
Li teaches the attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute (see page 16, TABLE 4, Network Capability Profile, wherein the parameters of network capability include Simultaneous use of the network slice attribute which indicates what other slices can or cannot be used with the slice. This reads on attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make wherein that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice in the You, Wifvesson, and Wu combination adapt to include the attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute because it would allow for an efficient mechanism to indicate information about whether applications/services that can be used in conjunction with one another (see Li above).
VIII. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019), Wu (US 2018/0368039 A) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0359271 A1).
Regarding claim 8 You, Wifvesson, and Wu teach the method according to claim 2 except for sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice.
Lee teaches sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice (see paragraphs [0016] & [0018], Determining whether the second S-NSSAI matches to the first S-NSSAI further comprises determining whether the first mapped SD and the second mapped SD are the same. A registration accept message is based on determining whether the first S-NSSAI matches to the second S-NSSSAI. This reads on sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the You, Wifvesson, and Wu combination adapt to include sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice because it would allow for an efficient mechanism to support session continuity in a wireless communication system (see Lee, paragraph [0012]).
IX. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view Wifvesson et al. (US 2022/0338079 A1, including Provisional application No. 62/888,930, filed on August 19, 2019), Wu (US 2018/0368039 A), of Wu (US 2018/0368039 A); Lee et al. (US 2020/0359271 A1); and Li et al. (US 2022/0159605 A1, including Provisional Application No. 62/931,376, filed on Nov. 6, 2019).
Regarding claim 9 You, Wifvesson, Wu, and Lee teach the method according to claim 8 except for wherein that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice comprises at least one of the following: the attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute; the attribute of the first slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same slice/service type (SST), wherein an SST of the attribute of the second slice is different from an SST of the attribute of the first slice; the attribute of the second slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same SST, wherein an SST of the attribute of the first slice is different from an SST of the attribute of the second slice; the attribute of the first slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same slice differentiator (SD), wherein an SD of the attribute of the second slice is different from an SD of the attribute of the first slice; or the attribute of the second slice allows simultaneous use with only a slice that has a same slice differentiator SD, wherein an SD of the attribute of the first slice is different from an SD of the attribute of the second slice.
Li teaches the attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute (see page 16, TABLE 4, Network Capability Profile, wherein the parameters of network capability include Simultaneous use of the network slice attribute which indicates what other slices can or cannot be used with the slice. This reads on attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make wherein that the attribute of the first slice does not match the attribute of the second slice in the You, Wifvesson, Wu, and Lee combination adapt to include the attribute of the first slice or the attribute of the second slice does not allow simultaneous use with a slice of any other attribute because it would allow for an efficient mechanism to indicate information about whether applications/services that can be used in conjunction with one another (see Li above).
X. Claims 10, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0274039 A1).
Regarding claim 10 You teaches a method comprising: sending, by user equipment, a first request message to a first network device, wherein the first request message is for requesting to access a second slice (see paragraphs [0119] – [0120] and Fig. 11, When the UE moves or when the UR needs to implement other services, the UE transmits the attach request message to the AN. The AN, according to the service identifier, chooses a slice 2. This reads on sending, by user equipment, a first request message to a first network device, wherein the first request message is for requesting to access a second slice); receiving, by the user equipment, a first indication message from the first network device, wherein the first indication message indicates the user equipment to obtain a second key; and obtaining, by the user equipment, the second key, (see paragraphs [0121] & [0122] -[0124] and Fig. 11, The slice 2 allocates a slice 2 user temporary identifier to the user and transmits an authentication request to the user authentication center. The user authentication center calculates slice 2 keys, and sends them to the UE via the AN so that the UE may be attached to the slice 2 (see paragraph [0124] and S914, Fig. 11). This reads on receiving, by the user equipment, a first indication message from the first network device, wherein the first indication message indicates the user equipment to obtain a second key; and obtaining, by the user equipment, the second key), wherein the second key is for performing security protection on at least one of information about the second slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the second slice (see paragraphs [0076] & [0122] - [0124] and Fig. 11, A key corresponding to the network slice can be derived according to a received slice identifier. The key is used by the UE to attach to the to the network slice. This reads on wherein the second key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the second slice or information in a process in which the user equipment accesses the second slice).
You does not specifically teach generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key.
Prasad teaches generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key (see paragraph [0116], The communication terminal generates the security keys regarding the NAS security using the information associated with the NSSAI. This reads on generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make You adapt to include generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key because it would allow for more versatile and secure slice access authorization.
Regarding claim 14 You teaches a communication apparatus, comprising at least one processor and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory stores programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to perform operations (see paragraphs [0053] & [0136]) comprising: sending a first request message to a first network device, wherein the first request message is for requesting to access a second slice (see paragraphs [0119] – [0120] and Fig. 11, When the UE moves or when the UR needs to implement other services, the UE transmits the attach request message to the AN. The AN, according to the service identifier, chooses a slice 2. This reads on sending a first request message to a first network device, wherein the first request message is for requesting to access a second slice); receiving a first indication message from the first network device, wherein the first indication message indicates the user equipment to obtain a second key; and obtaining the second key, (see paragraphs [0121] & [0122] -[0124] and Fig. 11, The slice 2 allocates a slice 2 user temporary identifier to the user and transmits an authentication request to the user authentication center. The user authentication center calculates slice 2 keys, and sends them to the UE via the AN so that the UE may be attached to the slice 2 (see paragraph [0124] and S914, Fig. 11). This reads on receiving a first indication message from the first network device, wherein the first indication message indicates the user equipment to obtain a second key; and obtaining the second key), wherein the second key is for performing security protection on at least one of information about the second slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the second slice (see paragraphs [0076] & [0122] - [0124] and Fig. 11, A key corresponding to the network slice can be derived according to a received slice identifier. The key is used by the UE to attach to the to the network slice. This reads on wherein the second key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the second slice or information in a process in which the user equipment accesses the second slice).
You does not specifically teach generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key.
Prasad teaches generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key (see paragraph [0116], The communication terminal generates the security keys regarding the NAS security using the information associated with the NSSAI. This reads on generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make You adapt to include generating, by the user equipment that is different from the first network device, the second key because it would allow for more versatile and secure slice access authorization.
Regarding claim 18 You teaches wherein the communication apparatus is the user equipment or a chip for the user equipment (see paragraph [0105], The UE with the smart authentication initiating the attach message reads on wherein the communication apparatus is the user equipment or a chip for the user equipment reads on wherein the communication apparatus is the user equipment or a chip for the user equipment).
Regarding claim 19 You teaches wherein the first request message is a registration request message that includes identification information of the communication apparatus (see paragraph [0105] and Fig. 11, The UE with the smart authentication initiates the attach message to the access network (AN). The attach message carries the user identifier. This reads on wherein the first request message is a registration request message that includes identification information of the communication apparatus).
Regarding claim 20 You teaches wherein the first indication message is a non-access stratum security mode command message (see paragraphs [0111] – [0112] & [0124] and Fig. 11, A user authentication request is transmitted to the UE. This reads on wherein the first indication message is a non-access stratum security mode command message).
XI. Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0274039 A1) and Arkko et al. (WO 2019/106451 A1).
Regarding claim 11 You and Prasad teach the method according to claim 10 except for obtaining, by the user equipment, a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of information about a first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice; and generating, by the user equipment, the second key based on the first key.
Arkko teaches generating, by the first network device, a second key comprises: generating, by the first network device, the second key based on a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of the information about the first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice (see paragraph [0062], A first key can be used as an input to derive a new key Kamf. The key Kamf is the root key used between the UE and the AMF to derive security keys for the network service/slice. This reads on obtaining, by the user equipment, a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of information about a first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice; and generating, by the user equipment, the second key based on the first key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the obtaining, by the first network device, a second key in the You and Prasad combination adapt to include obtaining, by the user equipment, a first key, wherein the first key is for performing security protection on at least one of information about a first slice or information that is in a process in which the user equipment accesses the first slice; and generating, by the user equipment, the second key based on the first key because it is well known that a first key can be used to derive a second key for the purposes of deriving security keys as taught in Arkko above.
Regarding claim 12 You and Prasad teaches the method according to claim 10 including wherein the performing, by the first network device, a second key comprises: performing, by the first network device, re-authentication on the user equipment (see You, paragraphs [0121] [0124] and Fig. 11, When the UE moves or when the UE needs to implement other services the UE transmits a second attach request (S926, Fig. 11) requiring a second authentication to derive a key for the other slice. This reads on wherein the performing, by the first network device, a second key comprises: performing, by the first network device, re-authentication on the user equipment) and except for generating, by the first network device, the second key in response to determining that the re-authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds.
Arkko teaches generating a key in response to determining that the authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds (see paragraph [0064] and Fig. 3, The serving network may transmit a message indicating a result of the authentication of the UE. Along with the result of the authentication of the UE the message may include or more keys may be derived in response to the authentication (see steps 314 & 316, Fig. 3). This reads on generating a key in response to determining that the authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make generating, by the first network device, the second key the You and Prasad combination adapt to include generating the second key in response to determining that the re-authentication performed by the first network device on the user equipment succeeds because it is well known that security keys for network services are provided to the UE after the UE is authenticated as described in Arkko above.
Regarding claim 15 You, Prasad, and Arkko limitations as recited in claim 11 and therefore claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons given above
Regarding claim 16 You, Prasad, and Arkko teach limitations as recited in claim 12 and therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons given above.
XII. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view Prasad et al. (US 2019/0274039 A1) and Lee et al. (US 2020/0359271 A1).
Regarding claim 13 You, Prasad, and Wu teach the method according to claim 10 except for sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice.
Lee teaches sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice (see paragraphs [0016] & [0018], Determining whether the second S-NSSAI matches to the first S-NSSAI further comprises determining whether the first mapped SD and the second mapped SD are the same. A registration accept message is based on determining whether the first S-NSSAI matches to the second S-NSSSAI. This reads on sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the You, Prasad, and Wu combination adapt to include sending, by the first network device, a registration accept message to the user equipment in response to determining that the attribute of the first slice matches the attribute of the second slice because it would allow for an efficient mechanism to support session continuity in a wireless communication system (see Lee, paragraph [0012]).
XIII. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (US 2019/0166493 A1) in view of Prasad et al. (US 2019/0274039 A1), Lee et al. (US 2020/0359271 A1).
Regarding claim 17 You and Prasad teach the communication apparatus according to claim 14 except for receiving a registration accept message from the first network device.
Lee teaches receiving a registration accept message from the first network device (see paragraph [0016], A registration accept message is sent and based on determining whether the first S-NSSAI matches to the second S-NSSSAI. This reads on receiving a registration accept message from the first network device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the You and Prasad combination adapt to include receiving a registration accept message from the first network device because it would allow for an efficient mechanism to support session continuity in a wireless communication system (see Lee, paragraph [0012]).
Response to Arguments
XIV. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
XV. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baskaran et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0262453 A1 discloses Security context for Target AMF including deriving a new security context for a Target AMF in response to successfully verifying a key request message (see abstract).
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 BRANDON J MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/BRANDON J MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
May 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights