DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 12 and 15 have been amended, claims 1-11, 14 and 16-20 have been cancelled, and claims 21-37 have been newly added. The status of claims 12-13, 15 and 21-37 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Note: Please submit supporting document for new or amended claim, such as paragraphs or figures in the future.
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 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;
initiating, based on 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 a 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:
receiving, after the terminal device is handed over from the source access network device to a target access network device (Fig. 3B step 3 and 5a, handover command to UE from S-RAN and HO confirmed from UE to target RAN, par 0110, 0115), indication information (see, Fig. 3B step 3, 5a- 5b and 7, UE receives associations (association between DRB #2.1 and PDU-S-ID #2, and association between DRB #3.1 with the (rejected) PDU Session ID #3) from T-RAN after handover from S-RAN to T-RAN, and received allowed NSSAI including new set of S-NSSAIs, par 0110, 0115-0116, 0118);
initiating, based on the indication information (see, indication of associations between DRB and PDU-S-ID, indication of allowed NSSAI including new set of S-NSSAIs, par 0116, 0118) and through the target access network device (Fig. 3C, T-RAN, par 0118), an establishment procedure of a second session of the terminal device (see, Fig. 3C 8a-8b, UE sends PDU session establishment requests for PDU Session ID #4 based on indication from T-RAN, par 0116, 0118-0120), wherein the second session corresponds to a second network slice (see, PDU Session ID #4 using S-NSSAI #1, 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. The motivation would have been to remap traffic between network slices during handover (par 0092).
Regarding claim 23 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 Velev’612 as applied to claims 12, 25 and 32 respectively above, and further in view of KIM et al (US20190116486A1).
Regarding claim 13 (Previously Presented), Kim’333 modified by 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).
The combination of Kim’333 and Velev’612 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the indication information is received from a session management network element, and 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 received from a session management network element (see, UE receives from SMF PDU session release command message, par 0501), and 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 Velev’612. The motivation would have been to provide a UE location change notification method performed by SMF (par 0023).
Regarding claim 22 (New), Kim’333 modified by 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 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’486. The motivation would have been to remap traffic between network slices during handover (par 0092).
Regarding claim 26 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 (New), 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 Velev’612 as applied to claims 12 and 25 respectively above, and further in view of Faccin et al (US20180324577A1).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Kim’333 modified by 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 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 Velev’612. The motivation would have been to prioritize incompatible network slices in wireless communications systems (par 0041).
Regarding claim 29 (New), 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.
Claims 21, 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim’333 in view of Velev’612, and further in view of KIM’486 as applied to claims 13, 26 and 33 respectively above, and further in view of Bercovici et al (US20220030407A1, Priority Date: Jul 24, 2020).
Regarding claim 21 (New), Kim’333 modified by Velev’612 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, Velev’612 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, the indication information and an identifier of the second network slice.
However Bercovici’407 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig. 1, 5G system capable of delivering data using enhanced characteristics compared with 5G systems, par 0018) discloses:
receiving, from the session management network element (PCF responsible for mobility and session management policies can be equated to session management network element, par 0025), the indication information and an identifier of the second network slice (see, UE receives URSP trigger indication and slice ID of the network slice from PCF, par 0025. Noted, slice IDs and thus second network slice, par 0073. Noted further, UE establish PDU session up to 8 network slices and determine how a particular application should be handled in new PDU session according to URSP (and thus indication of URSP can be equated to indication), par 0025, 0055).
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 method as taught by Bercovici’407 into that of Kim’333 modified by Velev’612 and KIM’486. The motivation would have been to provide interconnectability among first responders from different agencies (i.e., cross-agency communications) as well as deliver desired services at an incident scene (par 0055).
Note, claim 21 can also refer to the prior art KIM et al (US20230044211A1, PCT Priority Date: Nov 17, 2020) cited in conclusion section.
Regarding claim 27 (New), Claim 27 recites an apparatus to perform the steps recited in claim 21 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21.
Regarding claim 34 (New), Claim 34 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium to perform the steps recited in claim 21 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KIM et al (US20230044211A1, PCT Priority Date: Nov 17, 2020) discloses: An SMF+PGW-C that is a combination node of a session management function (SMF) in a 5G system (5GS) and a packet data network gateway-control (PGW-C) in evolved packet system (EPS) in a wireless communication system supporting interworking between the 5GS and the EPS, the SMF+PGW-C comprising: transmitting, to the UE, information indicating a cause associated with a release of the PDN connection associated with the network slice in case that the release of the PDN connection is identified (claim 5); wherein the information indicating the cause includes information representing a subscription removal of the subscribed S-NSSAI of the UE (claim 6); step 312, the UE may then re-establish or change the PDN sessions for the APN based on the cause information (the Cause value) received from the SMF+PGW-C via the EPS (par 0115). This applies to claim 21. SMF can be equated to session management network element; S-NSSAI can be equated identifier of the second network slice.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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