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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-17 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are considered below
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Velev fails to disclose that the AMF (1) obtains the list of replacement network slices and (2) requests the list of subscribed network slices from the same network component, as required by claim 1 under the Office Action's interpretation of Velev and claim 1. (Remarks: page 10, 4th paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Velev discloses ([0005] Aspects of the disclosure are directed to the AMF indicating to a UE during a registration procedure whether the network supports an alternative slice (S-NSSAI) feature and/or whether the UE is allowed to request an alternative S-NSSA; Note the AMF, e.g., a “network function,” verifies whether the network supports or whether the UE is allowed to request an alternative S-NSSAI), a network component (e.g., “AMF” a UE requests registration to network slices by communicating, to the 5GC (e.g., AMF), [0043]) to provide a first list of network slices to which the UE is subscribed (a NAS registration request message including a requested NSSAI containing a list of one or more S-NSSAIs to which the UE wants to register, [0043]; [0005] further states that “The AMF can also indicate to a session management function (SMF) that the PDU session is be established on an alternative S-NSSAI” Thus, the network function “(AMF” request, by indicating to the network component “SMF” that the PDU session is be established on an alternative S-NSSAI). And, obtains, by the network function and from the network component, a list of replacement network slices for replacing one or more of the first list of network slices (a NAS registration request message including a requested NSSAI containing a list of one or more S-NSSAIs to which the UE wants to register, [0043]; the second network slice (S-NSSAI-2) with the UE subscribed S-NSSAI(s) list stored in the UE subscription data and in the UE context in AMF, [0051]; the network slice S-NSSAI-2 can replace the network slice S-NSSAI-1 in the scenarios described above, [0052]; [0006]: if no alternative S-NSSAI is available in the URSP rule, then a new S-NSSAI is determined in the AMF, after the UE has requested an alternative S-NSSAI from the AMF. Further, the AMF is able to inform the UE about the need to establish the PDU session on an alternative (or compatible)S-NSSAI without requiring the session management (SM) (sub-) layer to be engaged; Further, [0057] The UE 104 requests registration with the network (at step 0), specifically to register with a first network slice (e.g. S-NSSAI-1). In the NAS registration request message, the UE can indicate to the AMF 120 its capabilities (e.g., core network capability, 5GMM capabilities). The UE include, in addition to a new 5GMM capability, whether the UE supports the feature of requesting an alternative S-NSSAI. This UE capability can be used in the AMF to determine whether to provide the UE with a configuration that allows the UE to request an alternative S-NSSAI.). Thus, cited Velev’s sections meet the claim as recited. Examiner submits that the “network component” is not properly defined in the claim to distinguish from a recited entity to include the AMF or SMF as recited in current prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Velev et al (2026/00599467).
Regarding claim 1, Velev discloses a device (Figure 1, 104, a device) comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive, from a User Equipment device (UE), over a network (UE requests registration, [0043] ), a registration request that identifies network slices requested by the UE (a UE requests registration to network slices by communicating, to the 5GC (e.g., AMF) a NAS registration request message including a requested NSSAI containing a list of one or more S-NSSAIs to which the UE wants to register [0043]);
request, by a network function ([0005] Aspects of the disclosure are directed to the AMF indicating to a UE during a registration procedure whether the network supports an alternative slice (S-NSSAI) feature and/or whether the UE is allowed to request an alternative S-NSSA; Note the AMF, e.g., “network function,” verifies whether the network supports or whether the UE is allowed to request an alternative S-NSSAI), a network component (e.g., “AMF” a UE requests registration to network slices by communicating, to the 5GC (e.g., AMF), [0043]) to provide a first list of network slices to which the UE is subscribed (a NAS registration request message including a requested NSSAI containing a list of one or more S-NSSAIs to which the UE wants to register, [0043]; [0005] further states that “The AMF can also indicate to a session management function (SMF) that the PDU session is be established on an alternative S-NSSAI” Thus, the network function “(AMF” request, by indicating to the network component “SMF” that the PDU session is be established on an alternative S-NSSAI. );
obtain, by the network function and from the network component, a list of replacement network slices for replacing one or more of the first list of network slices (a NAS registration request message including a requested NSSAI containing a list of one or more S-NSSAIs to which the UE wants to register, [0043]; the second network slice (S-NSSAI-2) with the UE subscribed S-NSSAI(s) list stored in the UE subscription data and in the UE context in AMF, [0051]; the network slice S-NSSAI-2 can replace the network slice S-NSSAI-1 in the scenarios described above, [0052]; [0006]: if no alternative S-NSSAI is available in the URSP rule, then a new S-NSSAI is determined in the AMF, after the UE has requested an alternative S-NSSAI from the AMF. Further, the AMF is able to inform the UE about the need to establish the PDU session on an alternative (or compatible)S-NSSAI without requiring the session management (SM) (sub-) layer to be engaged.) when one or more of the first list of network slices become unavailable for a session with the UE (Aspects of this disclosure describe how the network slice S-NSSAI-2 can replace the network slice S-NSSAI-1 in the scenarios described, [0052]; The AMF determines (at step 3) at least one of: (a)S-NSSAI-1 becomes unavailable and (b) an alternative S-NSSAI can be used to replace S-NSSAI-1, [0059];
[0057] The UE 104 requests registration with the network (at step 0), specifically to register with a first network slice (e.g. S-NSSAI-1). In the NAS registration request message, the UE can indicate to the AMF 120 its capabilities (e.g., core network capability, 5GMM capabilities). The UE include, in addition to a new 5GMM capability, whether the UE supports the feature of requesting an alternative S-NSSAI. This UE capability can be used in the AMF to determine whether to provide the UE with a configuration that allows the UE to request an alternative S-NSSAI. );
obtain a second list of network slices (The AMF determines (at step 3) that the S-NSSAI-1 is unavailable, but that an alternative S-NSSAI can be used to replace S-NSSAI-1, [0080]), which are allowed by the network to establish a session with the UE, based on the first list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices (to request the creation of a new PDU session towards a selected SMF, which serves the S-NSSAI-1, where the AMF includes a new indication to the SMF that the alternative S-NSSAI is supported (as in step 4a described above with reference to FIG. 3), [0080]);
also, …. the steps 4b through 10 as described above with reference to FIG. 3 can be performed, and the SMF1 would be involved in the procedure, although SMF1 is not used for the final PDU session establishment over the alternative S-NSSAI (e.g., S-NSSAI-3), [0080]); and
send the second list of network slices to the UE (the AMF determines to trigger network slice configuration in the UE by sending a new configured NSSAI to the UE, [0085]; The UE sends a NAS message to the AMF (at step 10), the message including a new PDU session ID (and optionally the association with the old PDU session ID), S-NSSAI-3, mapping of S-NSSAI-3 to S-NSSAI-1, DNN1, and N1 SM container (PDU session establishment request)).
Regarding claim 2, Velev discloses the device of claim 1, wherein when obtaining the list of replacement network slices, the processor is configured to: request subscription data from a Unified Data Management (UDM) (and the UE subscription data is stored in the unified data management (UDM), as well as in the serving AMF when the UE is registered with the network, [0049]); and receive the list of replacement network slices from the UDM (The SMF2 retrieves the UE session management subscription data from the UDM by invoking the service operation with subscriber data management (SDM), Nudm_SDM_Get request including the parameters subscription permanent identifier (SUPI), session management subscription data, selected DNN, S-NSSAI of the mapped S-NSSAI value (which is the S-NSSAI-1), [0073]).
Regarding claim 4, Velev discloses the device of claim 1, wherein when obtaining the second list of network slices based on the list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices, the processor is configured to: determine whether one or more network slices identified by the list are available for establishing a session with the UE or are congested (a UE requests registration to network slices by communicating, to the 5GC (e.g., AMF) a NAS registration request message including a requested NSSAI containing a list of one or more S-NSSAIs to which the UE wants to register, [0043])).
Regarding claim 5, Velev discloses the device of claim 1, wherein when obtaining the second list of network slices based on the list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices, the processor is configured to: select one or more network slices, which are available for establishing a session with the UE, from the list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices (Aspects of this disclosure describe how the network slice S-NSSAI-2 can replace the network slice S-NSSAI-1 in the scenarios described, [0052]; The AMF determines (at step 3) at least one of: (a)S-NSSAI-1 becomes unavailable and (b) an alternative S-NSSAI can be used to replace S-NSSAI-1, [0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Velev discloses the device of claim 1, wherein when obtaining the second list of network slices based on the list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices, the processor is configured to: send a request to a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF) to provide the second list of network slices, wherein the request includes the list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices; and receive the second list of network slices from the NSSF (the UE requests a registration to a new and unknown S-NSSAI, which should be determined in the network (e.g., by the AMF and/or NSSF), where the new S-NSSAI should be able to serve the data traffic as the replacement to S-NSSAI-1. This new S-NSSAI is not part of the UE configured NSSAI, and the UE may include additional S-NSSAIs in the requested NSSAI, which are part of the configured NSSAI, [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Velev discloses the device of claim 6, wherein the NSSF is configured to: select one or more Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAIs) from the list of network slices and the list of replacement network slices, and wherein the selected one or more S-NSSAIs identify network slices that are available to establish a session with the UE (the AMF uses an existing cause value for the rejected S-NSSAI-1 (e.g., rejected due to unavailability in the registration area) or a new cause value may be introduced to indicate that the S-NSSAI-1 is rejected temporarily and no alternative S-NSSAI is available, [0070]).
Regarding claim 8, Velev discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a request from the UE to establish a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session with a network slice identified by a first Single-Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) (the AMF can also indicate to a session management function (SMF) that the PDU session is be established on an alternative S-NSSAI, [0005]); identify a network slice with which the UE is to establish the PDU session based on the first S-NSSAI, [0005]); and send a message to a Session Management Function (SMF) to establish the PDU session between the identified network slice and the UE (the AMF is able to inform the UE about the need to establish the PDU session on an alternative (or compatible)S-NSSAI without requiring the session management (SM) (sub-) layer to be engaged. An alternative network slice S-NSSAI is compatible if determined usable to establish a PDU session for the UE, [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Velev discloses the device of claim 8, wherein when identifying the network slice, the processor is configured to: send a slice request, to a Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF), to provide a second S-NSSAI of the network slice with which the UE is to establish the PDU session (); and receive the second S-NSSAI from the NSSF (the UE requests a registration to a new and unknown S-NSSAI, which should be determined in the network (e.g., by the AMF and/or NSSF), where the new S-NSSAI should be able to serve the data traffic as the replacement to S-NSSAI-1. This new S-NSSAI is not part of the UE configured NSSAI, and the UE may include additional S-NSSAIs in the requested NSSAI, which are part of the configured NSSAI, [0066]).
10. The device of claim 1, wherein the device includes an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF) ([0005]: Aspects of the disclosure are directed to the AMF indicating to a UE during a registration procedure whether the network supports an alternative slice (S-NSSAI)), wherein when sending the third list of network slices, the processor is configured to: send a registration accept message to the UE (The AMF 120 transmits a registration acceptance response 124 to the UE 104, indicating acceptance of the registration and an allowability of the UE to register with an alternative network slice, [0042]).
Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Velev, “The present disclosure relates to methods, apparatuses, and systems that support techniques for changing network slices for protocol data unit (PDU) sessions.” [0004]).
Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 7, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 contains subject matter similar to claim 9, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Velev, “A non-transitory storage medium may be any available medium that may be accessed by a general-purpose or special-purpose computer.” [0134]).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velev in view of Thakolsri (EP 3471464).
Velev does not expressly disclose Velev does no expressly disclose the device of claim 2, wherein the UDM including a Unified Data Repository (UDR), wherein the UDR includes a subscription profile for the UE, and wherein the subscription profile includes: the list of network slices; and for each network slice identified by the list of network slices, a third list of identifiers for a set of replacement network slices, wherein an order of the identifiers in the third list indicates relative priorities of the set of replacement network slices.
However, Thakolsri disclose UE subscription profile (User Data Repository, UDR) storing relevant network slice information for the UE; a network function storing a policy of an UE of the mobile communication network including a list of one or more network slices to which the UE is not allowed access in a particular area, see page 20, ll. 16-22; the UDM may further consist of the actual UE's subscription database, which is known as, for example, the UDR (Unified Data Repository), see par. [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Velev with Thakolsri in order to enable the Unified Data Management and Policy Control Function to save subscription details that includes allowed Network Slice Selection Assistance Information and user identifiers.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to combine Velev with Thakolsri in order to arrive at the invention specified in claim 1.
Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 3, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights