DETAILED ACTION
The action is responsive to claims filed on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-6 are pending for evaluation.
Note: The claims are presented with independent claims listed first in numerical order, followed by dependent claims also in numerical order; any dual or mirror claims are grouped with the lowest-numbered claim in their respective pairing.
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
The Amendment filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, and 6 have been amended. Claims 1-6 remain pending for evaluation. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/29/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: The word “and” needs to be replaced with the word “or” within the limitations “wherein the first access type is at least one of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access” and “wherein the second access type is at least one of the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access” such that the limitations read as ““wherein the first access type is at least one of 3GPP access or non-3GPP access” and “wherein the second access type is at least one of the 3GPP access or the non-3GPP access.” The word “and” needs to be replaced with the word “or” within these limitations because 3GPP access types and non-3GPP access types are alternative access types, i.e., an access type is either 3GPP or non-3GPP, not both simultaneously. Accordingly, the claim would be clarified by replacing “and” with “or” in the above-recited limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1 and 4 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.
Applicant’s arguments presented with respect to the dependent claims are substantively the same as those set forth for Claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, the same reasoning and supporting explanation provided for Claims 1 and 4 are equally applicable to Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao et al. (US 2022/0248318), Qiao hereinafter, in view of Lin et al. (US 2022/0353937), Lin hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, Qiao teaches a method performed by a radio terminal comprising (Fig. 23, Para. [0362-0369]; See also Fig. 5A-B, Para. [0175-0180]; Fig. 6A-B, Para. [0181-0188]; Fig. 8-9, Para. [0223-0244]; Fig. 10-11, Para. [0245-0287]; Fig. 12-13, Para. [0288-0313]; Fig. 16, Para. [0327-0330]; Fig. 17, Para. [0331-0339]; Fig. 18, Para. [0340-0349]; Fig. 19, Para. [0350]; Fig. 20, Para. [0351-0352]; Fig. 21-22, Para. [0353- 0361]; Fig. 23, Para. [0362-0369]; Fig. 24, Para. [0370-0380]; Fig. 25, Para. [0381-0391]; Fig. 26, Para. [0392-0422]):
receiving, from a core network, a reject message related to a first access type with information including maximum number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session per network slice reached (Fig. 23, Para. [0362-0369] - [0368] In an example action, in response to the determining, the SMF may send to the UE via the AMF, a PDU session response message. In an example action, in response to the Nnssf_NSSelection_Get Response message received from the NSSF, the SMF may send to the UE via the AMF, a PDU session response message. In an example, the PDU session response message may be a PDU session accept message. The PDU session accept message may comprise the second allowed S-NSSAI indicating that the second allowed S-NSSAI may be used for the PDU session for the first PLMN. In an example, the PDU session accept message may comprise the second allowed NSSAI, wherein the second allowed NSSAI comprises the second allowed S-NSSAI. In an example, the PDU session response message may be a PDU session reject message. The PDU session reject message may comprise a cause value indicating the PDU session is rejected due to a quota has been reached for maximum number of PDU sessions for the first S-NSSAI for the first PLMN. In an example, the PDU session reject message may comprise the second allowed NSSAI, wherein the second allowed NSSAI comprises the second allowed S-NSSAI. The PDU session reject message may comprise the second allowed S-NSSAI and/or a re-attempt indicator indicating the UE may re-attempt to establish a second (new) PDU session for the second allowed S-NSSAI for the first PLMN; See also Fig. 5A-B, Para. [0175-0180]; Fig. 6A-B, Para. [0181-0188]; Fig. 8-9, Para. [0223-0244]; Fig. 10-11, Para. [0245-0287]; Fig. 12-13, Para. [0288-0313]; Fig. 16, Para. [0327-0330]; Fig. 17, Para. [0331-0339]; Fig. 18, Para. [0340-0349]; Fig. 19, Para. [0350]; Fig. 20, Para. [0351-0352]; Fig. 21-22, Para. [0353- 0361]; Fig. 23, Para. [0362-0369]; Fig. 24, Para. [0370-0380]; Fig. 25, Para. [0381-0391]; Fig. 26, Para. [0392-0422]);
The examiner interprets the SMF and AMF in Qiao Fig. 23 and Para. [0368] as “a core network” and PLMN in Qiao Para. [0368] as a “first access type” which is a 3GPP access type.
Yet, Qiao does not expressly teach and requesting a PDU Session via a second access type different from the first access type, wherein the first access type is at least one of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, and wherein the second access type is at least one of the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access.
However, Lin teaches
and requesting a PDU Session via a second access type different from the first access type, wherein the first access type is at least one of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, and wherein the second access type is at least one of the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access (Fig. 3, step 331, Para. [0029-0030] - [0030] In step 331, UE 301 triggers a UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure by sending a PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST message over non-3GPP access type, for the MA PDU (PSI=5). In step 332, UE 301 receives a PDU SESSION RELEASE COMMAND message for the same MA PDU (PSI=5), after the PDU session establishment procedure is triggered, but before the procedure is completed. In step 341, UE 301 determines a conflict condition for the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure caused by the network-requested PDU session release procedure. The UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure is to establish user plane resources on non-3GPP access type for the MA PDU session (PSI=5) that is already established on 3GPP access. A conflict condition is satisfied under the following scenarios, when the UE detects the network's intention of releasing the existing MA PDU (PSI=5). In a first scenario, the Access type IE is not included in the PDU SESSION RELEASE COMMAND. In a second scenario, the Access type IE included in the PDU SESSION RELEASE COMMAND indicates 3GPP access. Under both scenarios, the network-requested PDU session procedure is valid and should have higher priority than the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure. Therefore, in step 351, UE 301 decides to proceed with the network-requested PDU session release procedure for releasing the MA PDU session. In step 352, UE 301 sends a PDU SESSION RELEASE COMPLETE message to 5GS. In step 361, UE 301 aborts the UE-requested PDU session establishment procedure, stops timer T3580, releases the allocated PTI, and enters the state PROCEDURE TRANSACTION INACTIVE. The order of Steps 351, 352 and 361 can be different, e.g., the step 361 can be done by the UE 301 firstly and the step 351 can be done by the UE 301 secondly; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0018-0223]; Fig. 3, Para. [0029-0030]; Fig. 4, Para. [0031-0033]; Fig. 5, Para. [0034-0035]).
Lin Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are supported in Lin Provisional Application 63181384 on pg. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s invention of “methods and apparatus for configuring desired network capabilities in a service-based network” (Li Para. [0005]) with Lin’s invention of a “method for handling multi-access (MA) PDU session establishment when UE receives PDU session release command from the network” (Lin Para. [0002]) because Lin’s invention provides solutions for when “a UE-requested MA PDU session establishment procedure and a network-requested MA PDU session release procedure collide slice,” and thus prevent undefined UE behavior when such collisions occur (Lin Para. [0006]).
Examiner’s Note: The combination of Qiao and Lin teaches the claimed method because Qiao first teaches the network rejecting a PDU session request when a maximum number of PDU sessions for a network slice has been reached, and then teaches that the UE may re-attempt PDU session establishment after receiving the reject message. Lin is relied upon to clarify how such a subsequent PDU session establishment may be performed using a different access type, particularly where a UE requests a PDU session over non-3GPP access. Thus, in the proposed combination, after the UE receives Qiao’s PDU session reject message related to the first access type, the UE would request the PDU session again via a second access type, as taught by Lin’s Fig. 3, where the second access type is different from the first access type, e.g., one of 3Gpp access or non-3GPP access.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Figure 1A is Fig. 23 from Qiao (US 20220248318) and Figure 1B is Fig. 3 from Lin (US 20220353937). The highlights show the mappings between Claim 1 and the references.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
835
1508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Li teaches a radio terminal comprising (Fig. 14, Wireless Device 1410, Para. [0314-0324]; See also Fig. 3, Para. [0156-0174]):
a memory, and at least one processor configured to access the memory and configured to: (Fig. 14, Elements 1412 and 1411, Para. [0314-0324]; See also Fig. 3, Para. [0156-0174]),
receiving, from a core network, a reject message related to a first access type with information including maximum number of Protocol Data Unit (PDU) Session per network slice reached (Fig. 23, Para. [0362-0369]; See also Fig. 5A-B, Para. [0175-0180]; Fig. 6A-B, Para. [0181-0188]; Fig. 8-9, Para. [0223-0244]; Fig. 10-11, Para. [0245-0287]; Fig. 12-13, Para. [0288-0313]; Fig. 16, Para. [0327-0330]; Fig. 17, Para. [0331-0339]; Fig. 18, Para. [0340-0349]; Fig. 19, Para. [0350]; Fig. 20, Para. [0351-0352]; Fig. 21-22, Para. [0353- 0361]; Fig. 23, Para. [0362-0369]; Fig. 24, Para. [0370-0380]; Fig. 25, Para. [0381-0391]; Fig. 26, Para. [0392-0422]);
Yet, Qiao does not expressly teach and requesting a PDU Session via a second access type different from the first access type, wherein the first access type is at least one of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, and wherein the second access type is at least one of the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access.
However, Lin teaches
and requesting a PDU Session via a second access type different from the first access type, wherein the first access type is at least one of 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, and wherein the second access type is at least one of the 3GPP access and the non-3GPP access (Fig. 3, step 331, Para. [0029-0030]; See also Fig. 1, Para. [0018-0223]; Fig. 3, Para. [0029-0030]; Fig. 4, Para. [0031-0033]; Fig. 5, Para. [0034-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s invention of “methods and apparatus for configuring desired network capabilities in a service-based network” (Li Para. [0005]) with Lin’s invention of a “method for handling multi-access (MA) PDU session establishment when UE receives PDU session release command from the network” (Lin Para. [0002]) because Lin’s invention provides solutions for when “a UE-requested MA PDU session establishment procedure and a network-requested MA PDU session release procedure collide slice,” and thus prevent undefined UE behavior when such collisions occur (Lin Para. [0006]).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao in view of Lin, and further in view of Watfa et al. (US 2019/0223093, previously presented), Watfa hereinafter.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Qiao in view of Lin teaches Claims 1 and 4.
Yet, Qiao nor Lin expressly teach wherein the information includes at least one of a Back off timer (BOT) and the first access type.
However, Watfa teaches
wherein the information includes at least one of a Back off timer (BOT) and the first access type (Fig. 6; Para. [0129] - A WTRU may receive an explicit indication of a back-off timer (e.g., from the network and/or an AMF). The indication may instruct the WTRU to deactivate an inactive PDU session associated with a congested slice. The indication may instruct the WTRU to deactivate active and/or inactive PDU sessions associated with a congested slice. The WTRU may request a new network slice selection policy (NSSP), e.g., from a policy function. The policy function may reside in a network, for example. When requesting the new NSSP, the WTRU may indicate that a particular slice is congested. The policy function may provide a new NSSAI/S-NSSAI for the WTRU, e.g., upon receiving a request for a new NSSP from the WTRU. The WTRU may send a PDU session request (e.g., a session management request) with the new S-NSSAI received from the policy function; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0104-0122]; Fig. 5, Para. [0123-0124]; Fig. 6, Para. [0125-0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information includes at least one of a Back off timer (BOT) and the first access type as taught by Watfa, in the combined system of Qiao/Lin, so that it would provide mechanisms that enable a WTRU to determine, based on updated network slice information and configured policies, that a currently used network slice should be replaced with a different network slice and to establish connectivity with the appropriate access and mobility management function for the selected slice (Watfa Para. [0003-0006]).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding Claim 2, Qiao teaches that the reject message identifies the first PLMN for which the maximum number of PDU sessions has been reached, which corresponds to the claimed first access type. Watfa further teaches including a back-off timer in session/slice-related information. Thus, Qiao/Lin in view of Watfa teaches the additional information recited in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Qiao in view of Lin and Watfa teaches Claim 2.
Yet, Qiao nor Lin expressly teach wherein the PDU Session via the second access type is requested while the BOT is running.
However, Watfa teaches
wherein the PDU Session via the second access type is requested while the BOT is running (Fig. 6; Para. [0129] - A WTRU may receive an explicit indication of a back-off timer (e.g., from the network and/or an AMF). The indication may instruct the WTRU to deactivate an inactive PDU session associated with a congested slice. The indication may instruct the WTRU to deactivate active and/or inactive PDU sessions associated with a congested slice. The WTRU may request a new network slice selection policy (NSSP), e.g., from a policy function. The policy function may reside in a network, for example. When requesting the new NSSP, the WTRU may indicate that a particular slice is congested. The policy function may provide a new NSSAI/S-NSSAI for the WTRU, e.g., upon receiving a request for a new NSSP from the WTRU. The WTRU may send a PDU session request (e.g., a session management request) with the new S-NSSAI received from the policy function; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0104-0122]; Fig. 5, Para. [0123-0124]; Fig. 6, Para. [0125-0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the PDU Session via the second access type is requested while the BOT is running as taught by Watfa, in the combined system of Qiao/Lin, so that it would provide mechanisms that enable a WTRU to determine, based on updated network slice information and configured policies, that a currently used network slice should be replaced with a different network slice and to establish connectivity with the appropriate access and mobility management function for the selected slice (Watfa Para. [0003-0006]).
Examiner’s Note: Lin teaches that the PDU session requestion is performed over the second access type. Watfa teaches that, upon receiving an explicit indication of a BOT from the network and/or AMF, the WTRU may request a new network slice selection policy (NSSP) and subsequently request establishment of a PDU session using the new slice while the BOT is active. Because the BOT governs when PDU sessions associated with a congested slice are restricted, and Watfa expressly permits requesting a new NSSP and initiating a PDU session in response to the BOT indication, Watfa teaches requesting the PDU session via the second access type while the BOT is running. Thus, Qiao/Lin in view of Watfa teaches requesting the PDU session via the second access type while the BOT is running.
Regarding Claim 6, Qiao in view of Lin and Watfa Claim 5.
Yet, Qiao nor Lin expressly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and configured to: requesting requests the PDU Session via the second access type while the BOT is running.
However, Watfa teaches
wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and is configured to: request the PDU Session via the second access type while the BOT is running (Fig. 6; Para. [0129]; See also Fig. 4, Para. [0104-0122]; Fig. 5, Para. [0123-0124]; Fig. 6, Para. [0125-0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and is configured to: request the PDU Session via the second access type while the BOT is running as taught by Watfa, in the combined system of Qiao/Lin, so that it would provide mechanisms that enable a WTRU to determine, based on updated network slice information and configured policies, that a currently used network slice should be replaced with a different network slice and to establish connectivity with the appropriate access and mobility management function for the selected slice (Watfa Para. [0003-0006]).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Faccin et al. (US 20240284537) teaches in Fig. 4, steps 410-415 and Para. [0111-0113] that the core network (i.e., AMF) may determine to reject a radio terminal’s (i.e., UE) access to a network slice (i.e., S-NSSAI) due to “a maximum number of users for the network slice has been reached” (Para. [0112]).
Lee at al. (US 20240040476) teaches in Para. [0100] that the core network (i.e., NF of the 5G network) “may reject a subsequent PDU session establishment request when the number of current establishment sessions of the corresponding S-NSSAI exceeds the maximum number of sessions.”
Lin et al. (US 20220104075) teaches in Fig. 3, step 321 and Para. [0033] that a radio terminal (i.e., UE) sends a PDU session request (i.e., PDU SESSION ESTABLISHMENT REQUEST) over non-3GPP access. See also Fig. 4 and Para. [0034].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAENITA ANN FENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0880. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:30 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at (571) 270-1096. 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.
R.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights