DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/589,221 filed on 2/27/2024. The amendment presented on 7/8/2026, which cancels claims 4 and 10 and amends claims 1, 6-7, and 12, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/21/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The amendment presented on 7/8/2026 providing change to the claims is noted. All prior objections to the claims are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-9, and 11-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim)(US 2023/0397058) in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu)(US 2021/0227392).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Kim teaches as follows:
A terminal (interpreted as the User Equipment (UE) 100 in figure 4) in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising: a transceiver; and a controller (a UE 100 includes a processor 102 (equivalent to applicant’s controller), a memory 104, a transceiver 106, one or more antennas 108, a power management module 110, a battery 112, a display 114, a keypad 116, a subscriber identification module (SIM) card 118, a speaker 120, and a microphone 122, see, ¶ [0098] and figure 4) configured to:
transmit, to an access and mobility management function (AMF) via the transceiver, a message for requesting an establishment of a protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with a network slice (the terminal may transmit a PDU Session Establishment Request message to the network through RRC and N2 messages in order to receive service from the corresponding network, see, ¶ [0145] and step 1a and 1b in figure 6a)(the SMF creates a network slice remapping policy for the corresponding PDU session, see, ¶ [0175])(a network slice remapping indicator indicating whether network slice remapping is allowed for the terminal, see, ¶ [0121]), and
perform the establishment of the PDU session with a session management function (SMF)(UE requested PDU session establishment, see, ¶ [0180] and step 14 in figure 6a);
wherein in case that the network slice is to be replaced with an alternative network slice (interpreted as remapped network slice through network slice remapping), information on the alternative network slice is received from the SMF (AMF may select an SMF to be in charge of the corresponding PDU session. At this time, if the AMF knows that network slice remapping is permitted for the UE, AMF may select an SMF capable of supporting network slice remapping, see, ¶ [0145] and step 2 in figure 6a)(information on SMF capable of supporting network slice remapping may be configured in AMF, see, ¶ [0149]), and
wherein the alternative network slice is selected from at least one allowed network slice (AMF may generate a network slice remapping policy for the UE. In this case, the AMF must determine a network slice remapping policy so that a remapped S-NSSAI (equivalent to applicant’s network slice)(network slice and S-NSSAI (single network slice selection assistance information) may be used interchangeably, see, ¶ [0112]) that the corresponding SMF can support is selected among the network slice list (equivalent to applicant’s allowed network slice) received through the NRF. The AMF can also receive network slice list information that the corresponding SMF can support directly from the SMF, see, ¶ [0150]).
Kim teaches remapping network slice (replacing network slice) during a handover between a source NG-RAN and a target NG-RAN (see, ¶ [0111]).
Kim does not explicitly teach providing information on an alternative network slice in case the network slice is to be replaced with the alternative network slice and selecting a SMF based on the alternative network slice.
Zhu teaches as follows:
The AMF network element selects an SMF network element. For example, the SMF network element is the SMF network element 105 in FIG. 1. For example, the AMF network element selects the SMF network element for a session based on the S-NSSAI of the first network slice in the session establishment request message. The SMF network element is an SMF network element in the first network slice (see, ¶ [0089]-[0091] and S302 in figure 3);
the SMF network element determines that authentication needs to be performed on the first network slice (see, ¶ [0116] and S304 in figure 3); and
the AMF network element deletes S-NSSAI corresponding to a first network slice from first Allowed NSSAI, to generate second Allowed NSSAI (see, ¶ [0105] and S309 in figure 3).
Therefore, the AMF network element selects an SMF network element based on information in the generated second Allowed NSSAI which replacing the first network slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with Zhu to include selecting a SMF based on changed network slice information as taught by Zhu in order to efficiently select a proper SMF based on updated network slice information.
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Kim teaches as follows:
Wherein the message comprises information on the network slice and the information on the network slice comprises single-network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) of the network slice (mapping of original S-NSSAI to remapped S-NSSAI information may be included in the RRC message to be delivered to the UE. Through the corresponding information, since the original S-NSSAI cannot be used in the NG-RAN, the UE may be notified that the remapped S-NSSAI should be used instead. Therefore, when the UE tries to create a new PDU session related to the original S-NSSAI later, the UE includes the Remapped S-NSSAI instead of the original S-NSSAI in the PDU Session Establishment Request message, see, ¶ [0191]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Kim teaches as follows:
Wherein information on at least one network slice and information on at least one alternative network slice associated with each of the at least one network slice is stored in a unified data management (UDM)(if there is no session management subscription data for the corresponding PDU session, the SMF may obtain the corresponding information from the UDM, see, ¶ [0152]).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Kim teaches as follows:
Wherein the message further comprises a PDU session establishment request message (the terminal may transmit a PDU Session Establishment Request message to the network through RRC and N2 messages in order to receive service from the corresponding network, see, ¶ [0145] and step 1a and 1b in figure 6a).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim)(US 2023/0397058) in view of Zhu et al. (hereinafter Zhu)(US 2021/0227392), and further in view of Keller et al. (hereinafter Keller)(US 2022/0377655).
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Kim in view of Zhu teaches all limitations as presented above except for defining a maximum number of PDU session supported by each network slice.
Keller teaches as follows:
GSMA NG.116 describes a set of attributes that can be used by an operator to define a network slice type (NEST). These parameters include the maximum number of connections (e.g., concurrent PDU sessions) supported by the network slice and the maximum number of users (e.g., user equipment (UEs)) supported by the network slice. These attributes provide useful input to scale the network slice and provision enough physical resources to the network slice… The NEST can, in some cases define both the maximum number of connections and the maximum number of terminals supported by the network slice (see, ¶ [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Zhu with Keller to include the network slice type (NEST) specifying the maximum number of PDU sessions supported by the network slice as taught by Keller in order to efficiently provision (replacing) a network slice capable of handling required number of PDU sessions.
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 Jeong S Park whose telephone number is (571)270-1597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, Rebecca E Song can be reached at 571-270-3667. 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.
/JEONG S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2417
September 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights