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 Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 28 May 2026.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 9-10] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 11, 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 1, on page 8, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “in response to and after forwarding the updated list of subscribed network slices to the UE”.
Newly found reference Foti2 discloses a system where a list of subscribed network slices are communicated to the UE before the UE requests a new list of network slices. Additionally, based on the UE’s request, the list of subscribed network slices is updated to include the UE’s request [Paragraphs 61-63, 67 ].
Regarding claims 11 and 19, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 19 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 9-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0114444) in view of Foti et al. (hereinafter Foti2) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0234320).
Regarding claim 1, Foti teaches a device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor (processor 403) configured to:
forward, to a User Equipment device (UE) over a network, an [(CN 200, including AN 110-120, convey subscribed NSSAI to UE 100 [Paragraphs 79-82, 98]);
receive, [(UE 100 sends, in a registration request, its list of accepted slices/NSSAI to CN 200 and AN 110-120 [Paragraphs 79-82, 98]);
generate, based on the list of requested network slices, an updated list of allowed network slices (CN 200 updates NSSAIs intended for the UE 100, based on the received list of accepted slices/NSSAIs from UE 100 [Paragraphs 79-82, 98]); and
send the updated list of allowed network slices to the UE, wherein the updated list of allowed network slices is synchronized to the [(then, CN 200s updates the list of NSSAI intended for the UE 100 by separating unmatched SNNAIs and selects common NSSAIs, and sends it to the UE 100 [Paragraphs 79-82, 98]).
However, Foti does not explicitly mention: updated list of.
Foti2 teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
in response to and after forwarding the product list of subscribed network slices to the UE… updated list of (Foti2 discloses a system where a list of subscribed network slices are communicated to the UE before the UE requests a new list of network slices. Additionally, based on the UE’s request, the list of subscribed network slices is updated to include the UE’s request [Paragraphs 61-63, 67 ]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Foti) by communicate updated list of subscribed network slices (as taught by Foti2) for the purpose of properly registering the UE with the network (Foti2 – Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 2, Foti further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device includes an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) (AMF 205 – Fig. 6A), wherein when forwarding the updated list of subscribed network slices, the processor is configured to:
send a Configuration Update Command to the UE (CN/AMF sends the configuration command to the UE [Paragraph 86]).
Regarding claim 3, Foti further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the updated list of subscribed network slices includes:
Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI) ([Paragraph 80]); or
a Single-NSSAI (S-NSSAI) ([Paragraph 79]).
Regarding claim 4, Foti further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
request subscription data from a Unified Data Management (UDM) (network slice subscription data for a UE is requested [Paragraph 50]); and
receive an indications of a change to subscription to a network slice (UE informs the CN about the changes in the list of NSSAIs [Paragraph 92]).
Regarding claim 5, Foti further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
in response to forwarding the updated list of subscribed network slices, send an instruction to the UE to re-register at the device (every time an updated NSSAI list is updated, the UE must register [Paragraphs 80-82]).
Regarding claim 6, Foti further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
after forwarding the updated list of subscribed network devices, not send an instruction to the UE to register at the device, prior to receiving, from the UE, the registration request (when the UE initially registers with the network, it can include the preferred NSSAIs, thus not necessary to send an instruction for registration of the UE [Paragraph 92]).
Regarding claim 9, Foti further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the updated list of allowed network slices is a subset of the updated list of subscribed network slices (every updated list of network slices belongs to the principal list of network slices [Paragraphs 80-82]).
Regarding claim 10, Foti2 further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein when sending the updated list of allowed network slices, the processor is configured to: send a registration accept message to the UE (network accepting the registration request [Paragraphs 8-9]).
Regarding claims 11-16, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-6.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1, 3.
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foti et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0114444) in view of Foti et al. (hereinafter Foti2) (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0234320) and further in view of Velev et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0334307).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Foti and Foti2 teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Foti and Foti2 does not explicitly mention: wherein the processor is configured to signal a network component to: generate an updated UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule that includes a Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI); and download the updated USRP rule to the UE.
Velev teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the processor is configured to signal a network component to: generate an updated UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rule that includes a Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI); and download the updated USRP rule to the UE (for the disclosed system, updated URSP is generated including NSSAI and it is then applied to the UE [Paragraph 66]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Foti) by communicate updated list of subscribed network slices (as taught by Foti2) by generating URSP (as taught by Velev) for the purpose of routing selection policy rules (Velev – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 8, Velev further teaches the device of claim 7, wherein the UE is configured to: evaluate the updated URSP rule ([Paragraphs 63, 96]), wherein when the UE evaluates the URSP rule, the UE obtains an identifier for a network slice specified in the list of requested network slices (ID of network slice is obtained upon evaluation of the URSP rule [Paragraph 96]).
Regarding claims 17-18, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 7-8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
July 16, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights