Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2-16, 20-22 are pending in the application.
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 23, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 20-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention was directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 has overcome the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-14, 20-22 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter.
Regarding claim 2, the amendment to change “the first communications device” to “a first communications device” has overcome the prior rejection. However, the amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph,
Regarding claims 2, 6-14, and 20, the claims comprise text enclosed with parentheses, e.g., (S-NSSAI_1a, S-NSSAI1b), (NS1a, NS1b). Applicant agreed that the text enclosed with parentheses are intended as reference characters and that reference characters do not affect the scope of the claims. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karampatsis et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0152615 (“Karampatsis”) in view of Synnergren et al. US Patent Publication No. 2012/0278384 (“Synnergren”).
Applicant submitted that Karampatsis only discloses the server indicating that media "are to be routed via a different network interface", not that the UE must establish a second data session on a second slice as a condition for the upgrade. As such, Karampatsis fails to teach the features of claim 2. Synnergren teaches re-INVITE to add media but says nothing about slices or requiring a second data session on a different slice.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Karampatsis’ disclosure of an indication of the different network interface is an indication of a different network slice. Karampatsis states, on paragraph [0170], “additional notification event may be used to indicate to the UE 205 that media traffic of certain types is to be sent via a second network slice (e.g., the different network interface).” Karampatsis, on paragraph [0176,] further states, “IMS AS 152 sends a SIP message (e.g., a SIP message request) to the P-CSCF 1104 (via the S-CSCF 1106), the SIP message containing an indication that media traffic is to be offloaded to a different slice.” and “The P-CSCF 1104 passes the SIP message to the UE 205 (see communication 1235).” (emphasis noted)
Karampatsis also provides an indication to the UE that a second data session is required. Karampatsis discloses, on paragraph [0171], in response to the SIP message, the IMS client included in the UE determines “if there is an existing PDU session to carry the media traffic or if a new PDU session to a specific network interface needs to be established to route the media traffic." Karampatsis, on paragraph [0177], states, “Upon receiving the SIP message indicating that media traffic for the IMS session is to use a different network slice (e.g., a SIP message with “media redirection” feature tags), the IMS client in the UE 205 may determine that the media traffic cannot be sent via the first network slice. Accordingly, the UE 205 may check the URSP policies to identify an established the PDU session to send the IMS media or identify the need to establish a new PDU session for that task.” As disclosed by Karampatsis, in response to the SIP message, the UE determines to a use a second session on the different slice, whether by using an existing PDU session or establishing a new PDU session.
Applicant submitted that the combination of Karampatsis and Synnergren fails to teach the decision is "based on the first identifier [] of the first network slice [] and the session description information." Karampatsis bases the decision on the media type and separately notes that PDU sessions can be distinguished by S-NSSAL But there is no teaching that the slice decision is based on both (a) the first S-NSSAI of the currently used slice and (b) the SDP. Synnergren adds "upgrade" via re-INVITE but contributes nothing toward slice-aware decisioning.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Karampatsis, on paragraph [0054], states that in certain embodiments, the IP address for the PDU session or the ICSI identifies the S-NSSAI, which is a network slice identifier (see paragraph [0072] “network slice identifier (e.g., S-NSSAI)”). Karampatsis, on paragraph [0174], states, “SIP INVITE request includes an ICSI and/or IARI of the requested IMS service and an SDP offer. The SDP offer may include a media type and the IP address of the PDU session which is to be used for the media traffic.” Karampatsis, on paragraph [0175], states, “IMS AS 152 may base the determination on the ICSI and/or IARI included the SIP INVITE request… Moreover, in some embodiments, the IMS AS 152 uses both the media type and the ICSI/IARI to determine whether a different network slice is needed to carry the media traffic for the requested session.” Karampatsis determines, based on the media type and identifier of the current network slice, that a different network slice is to be used.
Furthermore, the claim uses the broad language, “session description information” and does not specify a particular protocol, such as session description protocol. Applicant’s specification, on page 25, states, “The session description information may be a Session Description Protocol information.” (emphasis noted) As such, the session description information is not limited to information in the “session description protocol” and may encompass other types of information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites, “a communications device” and “a first communication device” followed by “the communications device.” It is not clear which device “the communications device” is referring to as “the communications device” may also refer to the first communication device. Claims 6-7 recite “the communications device” and are rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
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, 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 2, 5, 7, 9-11, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karampatsis et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0152615 (“Karampatsis”) in view of Synnergren et al. US Patent Publication No. 2012/0278384 (“Synnergren”).
Regarding claim 2, Karampatsis teaches a method, performed by a multimedia application server, for upgrading a first data session for a first media type to handle a second media type, the method comprising:
receiving, from an application node associated with a communications network, a first identifier (S-NSSAI_la, S-NSSAI_b) of a first network slice (NS la, NS 1b) of the communications network (para. [0186] IMS AS 152 may interface with the 5GS NF 1010 to determine the appropriate network slice for the media flows. 5GS NF 1010 may return mapping information that associates a network slice identifier, such as the S-NSSAI), wherein the first data session is established by a communications device through the first network slice (NS la, NS 1b0 (see fig. 6. UE 205 with session using slice NSSAI-x); para. [0149] UE 205 attaches to a 5G network and is registered over a PDU session… via the default 5G network slice (e.g., the first network slice instance 920));
receiving a request, from a first communications device to handle the second media type, wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to a data session handling the second media type (para. [0170] media traffic of certain types is to be sent via second network slice. para. [0174] UE 205… sending a SIP INVITE request to the P-CSCF. SIP INVITE request includes… an SDP offer. SDP offer may include a media type. SDP offer with the IP address of the first PDU session (associated with the default network slice)); and
in response to the received request, and based on the first identifier (S-NSSAI_a, S- NSSAI_b) of the first network slice (NSla, NS1b) (para. [0054] IP address for the PDU session identifies the S-NSSAI. para. [0072] each PDU session is distinguishable by… network slice identifier (e.g., S-NSSAI)) and the session description information, sending an indication to the communications device that a second data session on a second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) identified by a second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) is required for the upgrade to handle the second media type to take place (para. [0175] IMS AS 152 determines whether the media traffic for the requested session needs to the sent via a different network slice. IMS AS 152 may base the determination on the media type included in the SDP offer. para. [0170] IMS AS 152 determines whether an IMS service is to use a different network interface (which may be the 5G network slice) … and indicates this to the UE. indication may be done by signaling to the UE 205 that the media flows for the IMS service are to be routed via a different network interface. para. [0173] may indicate that media traffic for an IMS service is to use a different network interface by sending a SIP ‘3xx Redirection’ response).
Karampatsis discloses receiving a request, from the first communications device, for a data session to handle the second media type. Karampatsis does not teach receiving a request to upgrade the first data session to handle the second media type. wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to an upgraded data session handling the second media type.
Synnergren teaches receiving a request, from a first communications device to upgrade a first data session to handle a second media type, wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to an upgraded data session handling the second media type (para. [0006] wants to add a video stream to the session by sending another SIP INVITE message, also referred to as a re-INVITE message. in the re-INVITE message the SDP is describing both the speech codec and the video codec. para. [0048] when the user of Client1 requests 401 to make this service change, client1 310 sends a Media Control message 411 to the Application Server 120 with a request to transmit voice and video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Synnergren’s disclosure such that the UE of Karampatsis is capable of requesting a change to an existing data session by specifying additional media. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a capability for clients to modify existing sessions to include additional media while Karampatsis would still be capable of determining a network slice to handle media traffic specified in the request.
Regarding claim 11, Karampatsis teaches a method, performed by a communications device, for upgrading a first data session of a first media type to handle a second media type, the method comprising:
establishing a first data session between a first communications device and a second communications device, wherein the communications device is one of the first or the second communications device and wherein the first data session is established by the communications device on a first network slice (NS la, NS lb) of a communications network serving the communications device (para. [0174] UE 205 (e.g., being attached on a first network slice) sending a SIP INVITE request to the PC-CSCF. SIP INVITE request includes… an SDP offer. SDP offer may include a media type and IP address of the PDU session. IP address of the first PDU session (associated with the default network slice)), wherein the first network slice (NS la, NS lb) is identified by a first identifier (S-NSSAI_la, S-NSSAI_1b) (para. [0054] IP address for the PDU session identifies the S-NSSAI. para. [0072] each PDU session is distinguishable by… network slice identifier (e.g., S-NSSAI)); and
receiving, from a multimedia application server associated with the communications network and controlling the first data session, an indication (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) that a second data session on a second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) identified by a second identifier (S- NSSAI2a, S-NSSAI_2b) is required to handle the second media type (para. [0175] IMS AS 152 determines whether the media traffic for the requested session needs to the sent via a different network slice. IMS AS 152 may base the determination on the media type included in the SDP offer. para. [0170] IMS AS 152 determines whether an IMS service is to use a different network interface (which may be the 5G network slice) … and indicates this to the UE. indication may be done by signaling to the UE 205 that the media flows for the IMS service are to be routed via a different network interface. para. [0173] may indicate that media traffic for an IMS service is to use a different network interface by sending a SIP ‘3xx Redirection’ response).
Karampatsis discloses a second data session on a second network slice is required to handle the second media type. Karampatsis does not teach upgrading the first data session to handle the second media type.
Synnergren teaches upgrading a first data session to handle second media type (para. [0006] wants to add a video stream to the session by sending another SIP INVITE message, also referred to as a re-INVITE message. in the re-INVITE message the SDP is describing both the speech codec and the video codec. para. [0048] when the user of Client1 requests 401 to make this service change, client1 310 sends a Media Control message 411 to the Application Server 120 with a request to transmit voice and video. application server 120 grants this request with a media control message 412.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Synnergren’s disclosure such that the UE of Karampatsis is capable of requesting a change to an existing data session by specifying additional media. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a capability for clients to modify existing sessions to include additional media while Karampatsis would still be capable of determining a network slice to handle media traffic specified in the request.
Regarding claim 20, Karampatsis teaches a multimedia application server associated with a communications network, for upgrading a first data session for a first media type to handle a second media type, wherein the multimedia application server comprises a processor and a memory (fig. 5, para. [0108]), the memory comprises instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the multimedia application server to:
receive from an application node associated with the communications network, a first identifier (S-NSSAI_la, S-NSSAIlb) of a first network slice (NSla, NS1b) of the communications network, wherein the first data session is established by a communications device through the first network slice (NS la, NS lb) (para. [0186] IMS AS 152 may interface with the 5GS NF 1010 to determine the appropriate network slice for the media flows. 5GS NF 1010 may return mapping information that associates a network slice identifier, such as the S-NSSAI);
receive a request, from the communications device to handle a second media type, wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to a data session handling the second media type (para. [0170] media traffic of certain types is to be sent via second network slice. para. [0174] UE 205… sending a SIP INVITE request to the P-CSCF. SIP INVITE request includes… an SDP offer. SDP offer may include a media type. SDP offer with the IP address of the first PDU session (associated with the default network slice); and
in response to the received request, and based on the first identifier (S-NSSAIla, S- NSSAIlb) of the first network slice (NSla, NSib) and the session description information, send an indication to the communications device that a second data session on a second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) identified by a second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) is required for the upgrade to handle the second media type to take place (para. [0175] IMS AS 152 determines whether the media traffic for the requested session needs to the sent via a different network slice. IMS AS 152 may base the determination on the media type included in the SDP offer. para. [0170] IMS AS 152 determines whether an IMS service is to use a different network interface (which may be the 5G network slice) … and indicates this to the UE. indication may be done by signaling to the UE 205 that the media flows for the IMS service are to be routed via a different network interface. para. [0173] may indicate that media traffic for an IMS service is to use a different network interface by sending a SIP ‘3xx Redirection’ response).
Karampatsis discloses receiving a request, from the first communications device, for a data session to handle the second media type. Karampatsis does not teach receiving a request, from the first communications device to upgrade the first data session to handle the second media type. wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to an upgraded data session handling the second media type
Synnergren teaches receiving a request, from a first communications device to upgrade a first data session to handle a second media type, wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to an upgraded data session handling the second media type (para. [0006] wants to add a video stream to the session by sending another SIP INVITE message, also referred to as a re-INVITE message. in the re-INVITE message the SDP is describing both the speech codec and the video codec. para. [0048] when the user of Client1 requests 401 to make this service change, client1 310 sends a Media Control message 411 to the Application Server 120 with a request to transmit voice and video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Synnergren’s disclosure such that the UE of Karampatsis is capable of requesting a change to an existing data session by specifying additional media. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a capability for clients to modify existing sessions to include additional media while Karampatsis would still be capable of determining a network slice to handle media traffic specified in the request.
Regarding claim 5, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the first and second data sessions each is an IMS session (Karampatsis: para. [0167] allocate resources for the media traffic of the IMS session. para. [0169] IMS session).
Regarding claim 7, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 2, further comprising: determining, based on the received first identifier (S-NSSAIla, S-NSSAIlb) and the received session description information corresponding to a data session, to instruct the communications device that the second data session on the second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) identified by the second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) is required for the upgrade to the second media type to take place (Karampatsis: para. [0059] SIP INVITE message may include a service identifier and a first SDP offer. SDP offer includes a media type and an IP address of a PDU session. para. [0183] when the UE 205 starts a media session, e.g., SIP INVITE request…, IMS AS 152 may indicate to the UE 205 that the media traffic for the requested session is to be sent via different slice. IMS AS 152 may also provide to the UE 205 assistance information, such as a mapping of ICSI/IARI values to S-NSSAI). Karampatsis does not teach the received session description information corresponding to the upgraded data session.
Synnergren teaches receiving a request, from a first communications device to upgrade a first data session to handle a second media type, wherein the request comprises session description information corresponding to an upgraded data session handling the second media type (para. [0006] wants to add a video stream to the session by sending another SIP INVITE message, also referred to as a re-INVITE message. in the re-INVITE message the SDP is describing both the speech codec and the video codec. para. [0048] when the user of Client1 requests 401 to make this service change, client1 310 sends a Media Control message 411 to the Application Server 120 with a request to transmit voice and video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Synnergren’s disclosure of received session description information corresponding to the upgraded data session. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a capability for clients to modify existing sessions to include additional media while Karampatsis would still be capable of determining a network slice to handle media traffic.
Regarding claim 9, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 2, further comprising: saving the first identifier (S-NSSAI_la, S-NSSAI_1b) of the first network slice in a session state associated with the first data session (Karampatsis: para. [0072] each PDU session is distinguishable by a unique combination of Data Network Name (“DNN”), Session and Service Continuity (“SSC”) mode, and/or network slice identifier (e.g., S-NSSAI).).
Regarding claim 10, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the first identifier (S- NSSAI_la, S-NSSAI_1b) of the first network slice (NSla, NSib) is received during session setup of the first data session from a policy controlling node in NpcfPolicyAuthorisation_Subscribe Response or during a registration procedure of the communications device with the application network (Karampatsis: para. [0149] network procedure 1000 begins as the UE 205 attaches to a 5G network and is registered over a PDU session used for IMS signaling (e.g., the first PDU session 910). sends the mapping of the IMS service to a network interface to the device management server (e.g., of the AS/DM server 1005. network interface may be indicated by an S-NSSAI of the slice).
Regarding claim 14, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 11, performed by the first communications device. Karampatsis teaches, the method further comprising: sending a request, to the first application network, to handle the second media type (para. [0174] SIP INVITE request includes an ICSI and/or IARI of the requested IMS service and an SDP offer. The SDP offer may include a media type); and wherein the first communications device receives the indication that the second data session on the second network slice (NS2a) is required for the upgrade to handle the second media type to take place (para. [0175] IMS AS 152 determines whether the media traffic for the requested session needs to the sent via a different network slice. para. [0177] Upon receiving the SIP message indicating that media traffic for the IMS session is to use a different network slice). Karampatsis does not teach sending a request, to the first application network, to upgrade the first data session to handle the second media type.
Synnergren teaches sending a request, to the first application network, to upgrade the first data session to handle the second media type (para. [0006] wants to add a video stream to the session by sending another SIP INVITE message, also referred to as a re-INVITE message. in the re-INVITE message the SDP is describing both the speech codec and the video codec. para. [0048] when the user of Client1 requests 401 to make this service change, client1 310 sends a Media Control message 411 to the Application Server 120 with a request to transmit voice and video). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Synnergren’s disclosure of sending a request, to the first application network, to upgrade the first data session to handle the second media type. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of similarly providing a capability for clients to modify existing sessions to include additional media while Karampatsis would still be capable of determining a network slice to handle media traffic.
Claims 3 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karampatsis in view of Synnergren and Chauhan US Patent Publication No. 2020/0106699 (“Chauhan”).
Regarding claim 3, Karampatsis does not teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the second media type requires a higher bandwidth or higher Quality of Service, QoS, than the first media type.
Chauhan teaches second media type, wherein the second media type requires a higher bandwidth or higher Quality of Service, QoS, than a first media type (para. [0196] determine whether the first traffic type requires higher QoS than the second traffic type. determine that the traffic type of sensitive traffic… requires higher QoS than the traffic type of best-effort traffic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Chauhan’s disclosure of a second media type requires a higher bandwidth or higher QoS than a first media type. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for a similar benefit of determining a path based on the required QoS.
Regarding claim 21, Karampatsis does not teach the multimedia application server according to claim 20, wherein the second media type requires a higher bandwidth or higher Quality of Service, QoS, than the first media type.
Chauhan teaches second media type, wherein the second media type requires a higher bandwidth or higher Quality of Service, QoS, than a first media type (para. [0196] determine whether the first traffic type requires higher QoS than the second traffic type. determine that the traffic type of sensitive traffic… requires higher QoS than the traffic type of best-effort traffic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Chauhan’s disclosure of a second media type requires a higher bandwidth or higher QoS than a first media type. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for a similar benefit of determining a path based on the required QoS.
Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karampatsis in view of Synnergren and Wang et al. US Patent Publication No. 2017/0237965 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 4, Karampatsis does not teach the method according to claim 2, wherein the second media type is any one or more out of: Virtual Reality, VR, Augmented Reality, AR, and Mixed Reality, MR.
Wang teaches second media type, wherein the second media type is any one or more out of: Virtual Reality, VR, Augmented Reality, AR, and Mixed Reality, MR (para. [0139] in a media description in an SDP message. a field can be added or modified in the session description and/or the media description to indicate the presence of virtual reality content in streaming content). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Wang’s disclosure of Virtual Reality, VR. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to stream different types of content from clients, using SDP, including virtual reality content.
Regarding claim 22, Karampatsis does not teach the multimedia application server according to claim 20, wherein the second media type is any one or more out of: Virtual Reality, VR, Augmented Reality, AR, and Mixed Reality, MR.
Wang teaches second media type, wherein the second media type is any one or more out of: Virtual Reality, VR, Augmented Reality, AR, and Mixed Reality, MR (para. [0139] in a media description in an SDP message. a field can be added or modified in the session description and/or the media description to indicate the presence of virtual reality content in streaming content). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis with Wang’s disclosure of Virtual Reality, VR. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial to stream different types of content from clients, using SDP, including virtual reality content.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karampatsis in view of Synnergren, and Lee et al. US Patent Publication No. 2020/0322778 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 6, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren the method according to claim 2. Karampatsis teaches wherein the indication to the communications device that the second data session on the second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) identified by the second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) is required to handle the second media type to take place is an second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S- NSSAI_2b), each associated with a respective second network slice, which are configured in the multimedia application server and support the second media type (para.[0183] IMS AS 152 may also provide to the UE 205 assistance information, such as a mapping of ICSI/IARI values to S-NSSAI). Synnergren teaches upgrading a first data session to handle second media type (para. [0006] wants to add a video stream to the session by sending another SIP INVITE message, also referred to as a re-INVITE message. in the re-INVITE message the SDP is describing both the speech codec and the video codec. para. [0048] when the user of Client1 requests 401 to make this service change, client1 310 sends a Media Control message 411 to the Application Server 120 with a request to transmit voice and video. application server 120 grants this request with a media control message 412.). Karampatsis and Synnergren do not teach the indication is a list of second identifiers (S-NSSAI_2a, S- NSSAI_2b), each associated with a respective second network slice.
Lee discloses providing an indication to a communications device wherein the indication is a list of second identifiers (S-NSSAI_2a, S- NSSAI_2b), each associated with a respective second network slice (para. [0099] slice is described as S-NSSAI. para. [0106] AMF sends to the terminal a registration accept message including the allowed NSSAI that is a list of S-NSSAIs that can be used by the terminal to access the network). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis and Synnergren with Lee’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for a similar benefit of receiving a list of allowed NSSAI for selection by the UE.
Claims 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karampatsis in view of Synnergren, and Lee et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0153268 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 12, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 11, further comprising: in response to the received indication that the second data session on the second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) is required for the upgrade to the second media type to take place (Karampatsis: para. [0175] IMS AS 152 determines whether the media traffic for the requested session needs to the sent via a different network slice. IMS AS 152 may base the determination on the media type included in the SDP offer. para. [0170] IMS AS 152 determines whether an IMS service is to use a different network interface… and indicates this to the UE). Karampatsis does not teach determining whether or not to upgrade the first data session to the second data session based on the second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) and an access network subscription profile of the communications device
Lee discloses determining whether to establish a session based on a second identifier (S-NSSAI_2a, S-NSSAI_2b) and an access network subscription profile of a communications device (para. [0066] in operation 401, a UE may generate a Registration Request message. Requested NSSAI that the UE is to use may be included in the Registration Request message. para. [0071] AMF may determine Allowed NSSAI based on the UE subscription data received from the UDM in operation 405. when S-NSSAI A and S-NSSAI B are included in Requested NSSAI requested by the UE, and both S-NSSAI A and S-NSSAI B are included in a subscribed slice, both S-NSSAI A and S-NSSAI B requested by the UE may be used). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis and Synnergren with Lee’s disclosure of determining whether to establish a session based on an access network subscription profile of a communications device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have utilized NSSAI that is allowed for the UE.
Regarding claim 13, Karampatsis in view of Synnergren teach the method according to claim 11, wherein the method further comprises: in response to the received indication, sending, to the multimedia application server a response to the received indication that the second data session on the second network slice (NS2a, NS2b) is required for upgrading the first data session, wherein the response indicates whether or not the second communications device is able to initiate the second data session with the second identifier (S-NSSAI2a, S-NSSAI_2b) for upgrading the first data session to handle the second media type, and wherein the response is based on the received second identifier (S- NSSAI_2b) (Karampatsis: para. [0173] UE 205 may include the IP address of the second network interface (e.g., second network slice. para. [01738] the new SIP INVITE request includes a new SDP offer that indicates the second network slice is to be used to route the media traffic) to convey the media in the SDP offer). Karampatsis does not teach wherein the response is based on an access network subscription profile of the second communications device.
Lee discloses determining whether to establish a session based an access network subscription profile of a communications device (para. [0066] in operation 401, a UE may generate a Registration Request message. Requested NSSAI that the UE is to use may be included in the Registration Request message. para. [0071] AMF may determine Allowed NSSAI based on the UE subscription data received from the UDM in operation 405. when S-NSSAI A and S-NSSAI B are included in Requested NSSAI requested by the UE, and both S-NSSAI A and S-NSSAI B are included in a subscribed slice, both S-NSSAI A and S-NSSAI B requested by the UE may be used). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Karampatsis and Synnergren with Lee’s disclosure of determining whether to establish a session based on an access network subscription profile of a communications device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have utilized NSSAI that is allowed for the UE.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights