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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Jun 03, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 12-13, 25-26 and 32-33 have been amended, and claims 21, 27 and 34 have been cancelled. No claim has been newly added. The status of claims 12-13, 15 and 21-26, 28-33 and 35-37 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on Jun 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged that the combination of Kim et al (US20230345333A1, PCT Priority Date: Aug 13, 2020) and Velev et al (US 20240015612 A1, PCT Priority Date: Oct 29, 2020) failed to disclose: “receiving, after the terminal device is handed over from the source access network device to a target access network device, indication information and an identifier of a second network slice from a session management function (SMF) network element” in amended claim 12.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner has made a
new ground of rejection to address the newly added claim limitations. The Examiner respectfully
submits that KIM et al (US20230319687A1, PCT Foreign Priority Date: Aug 13, 2020) discloses the amended claim limitations of claim 12. The same conclusion applies to claims 25 and 32.
The Applicant alleged that the combination of Kim et al (US20230345333A1, PCT Priority Date: Aug 13, 2020) and Velev et al (US 20240015612 A1, PCT Priority Date: Oct 29, 2020) failed to disclose: “initiating, in response to the indication information and through the target access network device, an establishment procedure of a second session of the terminal device, wherein the second session corresponds to the second network slice, and the first network slice and the second network slice are different but support accessing a same data network; and
sending a second data packet of the first application to the target access network device in the second session” in amended claim 12.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because Velev’612 discloses:
“In Step 5 b, … The T-RAN 225 may associate the DRB #2.1 with the (rejected) PDU Session ID #2 (e.g., PDU-S-ID #2) and the DRB #3.1 with the (rejected) PDU Session ID #3 (e.g., PDU-S-ID #3) and correspondingly signal this association to the UE 205” (par 0116);
“At Step 7, the UE 205 may perform a NAS MM Registration procedure (see block 357) from the T-RAN 225 in order to register with a new set of network slices (e.g., S-NSSAI #1 and S-NSSAI #3). The Registration accept message may contain new Allowed NSSAI including a new set of S-NSSAIs. In the particular example, the Allowed NSSAI contains S-NSSAI #1 and S-NSSAI #3 available in the T-RAN 225” (par 0118);
“At Step 8, after the Registration procedure, in Step Bathe UE 205 determines, based on the Allowed NSSAI containing S-NSSAI #1 and S-NSSAI #3, to map the traffic of App2 to S-NSSAI #1 and map the traffic of App3 to S-NSSAI #3 (see block 359)” (par 0119);
“Continuing on FIG. 3C, in Step 8 b, the UE 205 may determine that new PDU Session over S-NSSAI #1 needs to be established for the traffic which has used PDU Session ID #2 in the S-RAN 215. For this purpose, the UE 205 sends NAS SM msg (PDU Session establishment request (PDU Session ID #4, S-NSSAI #1, DNN2, linked PDU-S-ID #2)) whereas the “linked PDU-S-ID #2” means the linked PDU Session ID of the old PDU Session used in the S-RAN area (see messaging 361)” (par 0120).
Therefore Velev’612 teaches: UE sends NAS SM msg (PDU Session establishment request) after UE’s determination that new PDU Session over S-NSSAI #1 needs to be established according to Allowed NSSAI from T-RAN‘s Registration accept message.
Velev’612 further discloses:
“DRB #2 321 for PDU Session #2 323 associated with S-NSSAI #2 and DNN2. This PDU Session #2 323 (denoted “PDU-S #2”) is used by application 2 (denoted “App2”)” (par 0094)
“UE 205 sends NAS SM msg (PDU Session establishment request (PDU Session ID #4, S-NSSAI #1, DNN2, linked PDU-S-ID #2))” (par 0120).
And thus Velev’612 teaches: the first network slice and the second network slice are different but support accessing a same data network.
Velev’612 further discloses:
“At Step 11, after the handover is completed, the following setup is used:
…
DRB #4 377 for PDU Session #4 379 associated with S-NSSAI #1 and DNN2. This PDU Session #4 379 (denoted “PDU-S #4”) is used by App2 and was re-mapped from PDU Session #2 323” (par 0125).
And thus Velev’612 teaches: sending a second data packet of the first application to the target access network device in the second session. Here App2 can be equated to first application.
Therefore, the cited references teach the claimed limitations in question with adequate reasons and suggestions of combining the teachings. The same conclusion applies to claims 25 and 32.
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 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 col. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12, 23-25, 30-32 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US20230345333A1, PCT Priority Date: Aug 13, 2020) in view of KIM et al (US20230319687A1, PCT Foreign Priority Date: Aug 13, 2020), and further in view of Velev et al (US 20240015612 A1, PCT Priority Date: Oct 29, 2020).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Kim’333 discloses a wireless communication method (see, Fig. 10, AMF requests RAN-1 to steer the UE to RAN-2 supporting specific NSSAI, par 0311-0313), comprising:
Sending a first data packet of a first application (see, PDU session established for application, par 0185, 0342) to a source access network device (see, Fig. 8b and 13a, NG-RAN-1, par 0388) in a first session of a terminal device (see, Fig. 8b step 13, UE sends uplink data to NG-RAN-1 through PDU session established for application after N2 PDU Session Response message, par 0232), wherein the first session corresponds to a first network slice (see, PDU session for S-NSSAI in allowed NSSAI, par 0192).
Kim’333 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
receiving, after the terminal device is handed over from the source access network device to a target access network device, indication information and an identifier of a second network slice from a session management function (SMF) network element;
initiating, in response to the indication information and through the target access network device, an establishment procedure of a second session of the terminal device, wherein the second session corresponds to the second network slice, and the first network slice and the second network slice are different but support accessing a same data network; and
sending a second data packet of the first application to the target access network device in the second session.
However KIM’687 from the same field of endeavor (see, PDU Session Establishment Procedure initiated by UE, par 0181-0186) discloses: receiving, after the terminal device is handed over from the source access network device to a target access network device (Fig. 11a-11c step 20, after confirming that the Handover procedure from RAN-1 to RAN-2 for the UE has ended, par 0353), indication information (multiple QoS rules in N1 SM information through SM response message, par 0210, 0216) and an identifier of a second network slice (S-NSSAI in N1 SM information through SM response message, par 0210. Noted, S-NSSAIs and thus second network slice, par 0236) from a session management function (SMF) (SMF, par 0210, 0353) network element (see, Figs. 8a-8b and 11a-11c step 20, UE receives from SMF the multiple QoS rules and NSSAI in N1 SM information through SM response message after UE handover from RAN-1 to RAN-2, par 0210, 0215-0216, 0353);
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the wireless communication method as taught by KIM’687 into that of Kim’333. The motivation would have been to support 5GC assisted cell selection to access a network slice (par 0005).
The combination of Kim’333 and KIM’687 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
initiating, in response to the indication information and through the target access network device, an establishment procedure of a second session of the terminal device, wherein the second session corresponds to the second network slice, and the first network slice and the second network slice are different but support accessing a same data network; and
sending a second data packet of the first application to the target access network device in the second session.
However Velev’612 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2A, UE handover from source RAN node to target RAN node with target cell does not support all currently used network slices in the source cell, par 0071) discloses:
initiating, in response to the indication information (Allowed NSSAI containing S-NSSAIs in Registration accept message from T-RAN, par 0118) and through the target access network device, an establishment procedure (NAS SM msg (PDU Session establishment request (PDU Session ID #4, S-NSSAI #1, DNN2, linked PDU-S-ID #2)), par 0120) of a second session of the terminal device (see, Fig. 3B step 7-3C step 8b, UE sends PDU Session establishment request (PDU Session ID #4, S-NSSAI #1, DNN2, linked PDU-S-ID #2) to T-RAN in response to Allowed NSSAI containing S-NSSAIs in Registration accept message from T-RAN, par 0118-0120), wherein the second session corresponds to the second network slice (see, PDU Session ID #4 corresponding to S-NSSAI #1 in PDU Session establishment request, par 0120), and the first network slice and the second network slice are different but support accessing a same data network (see, PDU Session ID #4 using S-NSSAI #1 in T-RAN for linked PDU-S-ID #2 using S-NSSAI #2 in S-RAN, and all accessing DNN2, par 0094, 0120); and
sending a second data packet of the first application (app2 can be equated to first application, par 0125) to the target access network device (T-RAN can be equated to target access network device, par 0123) in the second session (see, Fig. 3C step 11 (377), UE transmits data packets to T-RAN using new established PDU Session ID #4 for app2, par 0123, 0125, 0130. Noted, PDU Session Resource setup/modify for PDU Session ID #4 to T-RAN, and thus data packets transmitted to T-RAN for PDU Session ID #4, par 0123).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the wireless communication method as taught by Velev’612 into that of Kim’333 modified by KIM’687. The motivation would have been to remap traffic between network slices during handover (par 0092).
Regarding claim 23 (Previously Presented), Kim’333 discloses the method according to claim 12, (see, Fig. 10, AMF requests RAN-1 to steer the UE to RAN-2 supporting specific NSSAI, par 0311-0313), wherein the method further comprises:
initiating a registration procedure through the source access network device (see, Fig. 10, UE sends Registration Request to RAN-1, par 0273, 0307); and
receiving, from a mobility management network element (AMF can be equated to mobility management network element, par 0192) during the registration procedure, an identifier of the first network slice and an identifier of the second network slice (see, UE receives allowed S-NSSAI and mapped S-NSSAI from AMF during registration procedure, par 0192), wherein the first network slice and the second network slice are network slices that the terminal device is allowed to access (see, allowed S-NSSAI and mapped S-NSSAI are S-NSSAI to be used by UE in PDU session establishment request , par 0192).
Regarding claim 24 (Previously Presented), Kim’333 discloses the method according to claim 12, (see, Fig. 10, AMF requests RAN-1 to steer the UE to RAN-2 supporting specific NSSAI, par 0311-0313), wherein the method is performed by the terminal device or a chip in the terminal device (see, Fig. 8a-8b, UE performed method, par 0188, 0190-0194).
Regarding claim 25 (Currently Amended), Claim 25 recites an apparatus encompass limitations that are similar to limitations of claim 1, except:
comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the at least one memory stores computer instructions which are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to.
Kim’333 discloses:
comprising at least one processor and at least one memory (see, Fig. 2, wireless device comprises processor and memory, par 0086), wherein the at least one memory stores computer instructions which are executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to (see, instructions stored in memory executed by the processor to perform the methods, par 0088).
Thus, it is rejected with the same rationale applied against claim 12 above.
Regarding claim 30 (Previously Presented), Claim 30 recites an apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 23 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 23.
Regarding claim 31 (Previously Presented), Claim 31 recites an apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 24 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 24.
Regarding claim 32 (Currently Amended), Claim 32 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which are executable by an apparatus to cause the apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 25 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 25.
Regarding claim 36 (Previously Presented), Claim 36 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which are executable by an apparatus to cause the apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 23 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 23.
Regarding claim 37 (Previously Presented), Claim 37 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which are executable by an apparatus to cause the apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 24 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 24.
Claims 13, 22, 26, 28, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’333 in view of KIM’687, and further in view of Velev’612 as applied to claims 12, 25 and 32 respectively above, and further in view of KIM et al (US20190116486A1).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Kim’333 modified by KIM’687 and Velev’612 discloses a wireless communication method (see, Fig. 10, AMF requests RAN-1 to steer the UE to RAN-2 supporting specific NSSAI, par 0311-0313).
The combination of Kim’333, KIM’687 and Velev’612 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the indication information is used to trigger the terminal device to initiate the establishment procedure of the second session.
However KIM’486 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 10, change procedure of a session and service continuity (SSC) mode 2 PSA for a PDU session, par 0500) discloses:
wherein the indication information (see, PDU session release command message, par 0501) is used to trigger the terminal device to initiate the establishment procedure of the second session (see, Fig. 10, SMF sends UE PDU session release command message including a cause indicating that a PDU session re-establishment which cause UE to create a new PDU session ID and initiate a PDU session establishment procedure, par 0501-0502).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the wireless communication method as taught by KIM’486 into that of Kim’333 modified by KIM’687 and Velev’612. The motivation would have been to provide a UE location change notification method performed by SMF (par 0023).
Regarding claim 22 (Previously Presented), Kim’333 modified by KIM’687 and KIM’486 discloses the method according to claim 13 (see, Fig. 10, AMF requests RAN-1 to steer the UE to RAN-2 supporting specific NSSAI, par 0311-0313).
The combination of Kim’333, KIM’687 and KIM’486 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the receiving the indication information comprises:
receiving, from the session management network element, a protocol data unit session modification command message, wherein the protocol data unit session modification command message comprises an identifier of the first session and the indication information.
However Velev’612 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 2A, UE handover from source RAN node to target RAN node with target cell does not support all currently used network slices in the source cell, par 0071) discloses:
wherein the receiving the indication information comprises:
receiving, from the session management network element (SMF can be equated to session management network element, par 0123), a protocol data unit session modification command message (see, UE receives from SMF the PDU Session Resource setup/modify message, par 0123), wherein the protocol data unit session modification command message comprises an identifier of the first session (PDU-S-ID #2 can be equated to identifier of the first session, par 0123) and the indication information (see, PDU Session Resource setup/modify message including PDU Session ID #4 with linked PDU-S-ID #2, par 0123. Noted, association of PDU Session ID #4 with linked PDU-S-ID #2 can be equated to indication information).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the wireless communication method as taught by Velev’612 into that of Kim’333 modified by KIM’687 and KIM’486. The motivation would have been to remap traffic between network slices during handover (par 0092).
Regarding claim 26 (Currently Amended), Claim 26 recites an apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 13 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 28 (Previously Presented), Claim 28 recites an apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 22 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Regarding claim 33 (Currently Amended), Claim 33 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 13 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 13.
Regarding claim 35 (Previously Presented), Claim 35 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 22 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 22.
Claims 15 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’333 in view of KIM’687, and further in view of Velev’612 as applied to claims 12, 25 and 32 respectively above, and further in view of Velev’612 as applied to claims 12 and 25 respectively above, and further in view of Faccin et al (US20180324577A1).
Regarding claim 15 (Previously Presented), Kim’333 modified by KIM’687 and Velev’612 discloses the method according to claim 12 (see, Fig. 10, AMF requests RAN-1 to steer the UE to RAN-2 supporting specific NSSAI, par 0311-0313), further comprising.
The combination of Kim’333, KIM’687 and Velev’612 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach: releasing, based on the indication information, the first session.
However Faccin’577 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, UE with active PDU session taking action when receiving indication that a network slice for UE’s active PDU session is not available, par 0045) discloses: releasing, based on the indication information (see, new Allowed NSSAI, par 0154), the first session (see, UE triggered by AMF to disconnection of the PDU session(s) or user plane resource release for the PDU session(s) corresponding to the slice identified by the S-NSSAI which is not part of a new Allowed NSSAI that AMF provides to the UE, par 0154. Note, indication to the UE that the AMF has triggered release of the PDU session, par 0045).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the wireless communication method as taught by Faccin’577 into that of Kim’333 modified by KIM’687 and Velev’612. The motivation would have been to prioritize incompatible network slices in wireless communications systems (par 0041).
Regarding claim 29 (Previously Presented), Claim 29 recites an apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 15 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, KWANG Yao can be reached on (571)272-3182. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XUAN LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights