DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following reason:
In pages 7-8, Applicant’s argues that:
Applicant respectfully submits that the prior art of record, including Huang, Huang_2, Koshta, and Sugawara, either individually or in combination, does not disclose or render obvious every feature as recited in claim 21. Thus, claim 21 is submitted to be patentable over the prior art of record.
The Office Action (page 4, second paragraph) acknowledges that Huang does not disclose the feature "an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type," as recited in claim 21. Applicant thanks Examiner for the above acknowledgement. The Office Action (page 4, third paragraph) asserted that Huang_2 cured the deficiencies of Huang by citing paragraphs [0020]-[0021] of Huang_2. The Office Action has alleged that Huang_2 teaches this limitation by disclosing a scenario where a UE receives a PDU session establishment reject message with cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist" and, in response, releases the PDU session over the non-3GPP access to synchronize with the network. Applicant respectfully submits that this mapping fails for at least the following reasons.
Huang_2 does not cure the deficiencies of Huang, because the cited cause value #54 "PDU session does not exist" in paragraph [0021] of Huang_2 does not teach and is not "an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to the current access type." Rather, paragraph [0021] of Huang_2 simply discloses that the PDU session does not exist at the network side. The UE's subsequent behavior of releasing the session and attempting on another access type is a UE-initiated recovery action to resynchronize with the network-it is not based on receiving a network-provided indication that the rejection is limited to the current access type. The abstract of Huang_2 explicitly states that its purpose is "handling invalid PDU session during handover procedure," which is fundamentally different from the problem solved by claim 21, which is managing network slice admission control and resource congestion.
Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art, when faced with the congestion control problem addressed in Huang, would not be motivated to look to a handover synchronization mechanism in Huang_2 to limit the scope of a rejection cause to a particular access type. The references address fundamentally different technical problems and provide no teaching or suggestion to combine them in the manner alleged by the Examiner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant's above argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Huang_2 merely for the wording of cause value #54, “PDU session does not exist.” Rather, Huang_2 is relied upon for the disclosed procedure as a whole. Huang_2 explains that, when the UE attempts to hand over a PDU session between 3GPP access and non-3GPP access, the UE may receive a PDU session establishment reject message with cause value #54. See Huang_2 [0020]-[0021]. Huang_2 then explains that, in response to that rejection, the UE releases the PDU session over the non-3GPP access and may initiate another PDU session establishment procedure over the target access type using the same PDU session parameters. See Huang_2 [0021].
Thus, Huang_2 teaches that the rejection is handled in the context of the access type involved in the failed PDU session establishment procedure, and that the UE is not barred from initiating another PDU session establishment procedure over a different access type. While Applicant characterizes the UE's subsequent action as merely a UE-initiated recovery action, Huang_2 expressly states that the UE takes that action after receiving the PDU session establishment reject message from the network. The claim does not require the indication to be in a particular field or to use the exact words “current access type.” Therefore, Huang_2 reasonably teaches or at least suggests the claimed indication that the rejection applies only to the current access type and that the UE may proceed over another access type.
Applicant's argument that Huang_2 is directed to handover synchronization rather than congestion control is also not persuasive. Huang is relied upon for the PDU session rejection/congestion-control, framework, including receiving a rejection/congestion cause and network-provided control information. See Huang [0049]. Huang_2 is relied upon for the access-type-specific handling of a PDU session establishment rejection between 3GPP and non-3GPP access. Since claim 21 itself recites initiating a second PDU session establishment request over another access type, Huang_2 is directly relevant to the claimed access-type feature. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Huang_2's access-type teaching to Huang's PDU session rejection framework, and the combination teaches or suggests the claimed limitation.
In pages 8-9, Applicant’s argues that:
Claim 21 is patentable over the prior art of record for additional reasons. The Office Action (page 4, third paragraph) also alleged that paragraphs [0020]-[0021] of Huang_2 teach the feature "wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type," as recited in claim 21. Applicant respectfully submits that this mapping fails for at least the following reasons. The above feature requires a network-provided indication that explicitly conveys permission to attempt a PDU session establishment on a different access type. In Huang_2, the UE's decision to try another access type is a UE-initiated recovery behavior in response to a handover failure-it is not based on receiving an "indication" from the network that permits the UE to do so. The cause value #54 does not function as such an indication; it merely informs the UE that the session does not exist. Furthermore, the purpose in Huang_2 is to successfully move a session to a new technology during a handover, whereas the purpose in claim 21 is to find an alternative access path when the current one is congested for a specific network slice.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant's argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Claim 21 does not require the network to use the exact words “permission” or “allowed”, nor does it require the indication to be provided in a separate field from the rejection cause. Huang_2 teaches that, when the UE attempts to move the PDU session between non-3GPP access and 3GPP access, the UE receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network with cause value #54, “PDU session does not exist.” Huang_2 further explains that, after receiving that reject message, the UE may initiate another PDU session establishment procedure over the target access type using the same PDU session parameters. See Huang_2 [0020]-[0021]. Thus, the network-provided reject message is the information that causes the UE to proceed in the disclosed manner, including attempting establishment over the other access type.
Applicant's position that the UE's action is merely a UE-initiated recovery behavior is not persuasive because the UE does not act independently of the network message. Huang_2 expressly ties the UE's subsequent procedure to the received PDU session establishment reject message. In particular, Huang_2 states that the UE receives the reject message with cause value #54 and, in response, releases the PDU session over the source/current access and may initiate another PDU session establishment procedure over the target/different access type. See Huang_2 [0021].
Therefore, Huang_2 teaches that the UE is permitted to proceed over the other access type after receiving the rejection from the network, which reasonably corresponds to the claimed indication that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type.
Applicant's argument that Huang_2 is directed to handover rather than finding an alternative access path for congestion also does not overcome the rejection. Huang is relied upon for the congestion and S-NSSAI framework, including the network-provided rejection/congestion cause and control information. Huang_2 is relied upon for the narrower access-type teaching, namely that after a PDU session establishment rejection involving one access type, the UE may proceed with another PDU session establishment procedure over a different access type. Since claim 21 itself recites different access types, Huang_2 is reasonably pertinent to the claimed feature, and one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to apply that access-type handling to Huang's PDU session rejection framework.
In pages 9, Applicant’s argues that:
Claim 21 is patentable over the prior art of record for yet another reason. The Office Action (page 3, third paragraph) alleged that paragraphs [0058]-[0061] of Huang disclose the feature "wherein the first PDU session establishment request and the second PDU session establishment request are associated with the same single network slice selection assistance information, S-NSSAI," as recited in claim 21. The cited portion of Huang discusses scenarios where a UE moves between networks (inter-PLMN change) and the S-NSSAI is updated, with subsequent requests compared against the back-off timer associated with the original S-NSSAI context. Applicant respectfully submits that this mapping is inapplicable to claim 21 for at least the following reasons. The claimed invention addresses finding an alternative access path when the current one is congested for a specific network slice while remaining in the same network. In contrast, Huang discusses a scenario where the UE moves between different PLMNs (e.g., from VPLMN 1 to VPLMN 2), and the S-NSSAI comparison is for congestion control across PLMNs. See paragraph [0061] of Huang. This inter-PLMN scenario is not applicable to the claimed per- access-type admission control within the same network. Moreover, the entire context of Huang revolves around managing sessions and congestion for a given S-NSSAI, making it inherent that subsequent requests would be associated with that same network slice context-this does not teach the specific claimed feature that the first and second PDU session establishment requests are over different access types while being associated with the same S-NSSAI.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant's argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Huang paragraphs [0058]-[0061] are not relied upon merely for an inter-PLMN movement scenario. Rather, Huang is relied upon for teaching that the UE maintains and applies congestion control based on the S-NSSAI associated with the PDU session/request. For example, Huang [0058] teaches that after receiving a congestion cause and the ABO indication, the UE starts a back-off timer and associates that back-off timer with the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1. Huang [0059] further teaches that the UE compares the S-NSSAI associated with the back-off timer with the S-NSSAI associated with a later request message, including a PDU session establishment request. Thus, Huang teaches that later PDU session requests are evaluated using the same
S-NSSAI context.
Applicant's argument that Huang is limited to movement between PLMNs does not overcome the rejection. The cited portions of Huang show that even when the network context changes, the UE still tracks the relevant S-NSSAI or mapped S-NSSAI and applies the back-off/congestion control to later PDU session requests having that same S-NSSAI association. See Huang [0060]-[0061]. This is relevant to the claimed limitation because claim 21 requires the first and second PDU session establishment requests to be associated with the same S-NSSAI. Huang teaches maintaining that S-NSSAI relationship for later request messages, while Huang_2 teaches initiating another PDU session establishment procedure over a different access type using the same PDU session parameters. See Huang_2 [0021].
Applicant also argues that Huang does not teach first and second PDU session establishment requests over different access types while being associated with the same S-NSSAI. This argument appears to be directed to Huang alone, but the rejection relies on the combined teachings. Huang provides the same S-NSSAI/request-control teaching, and Huang_2 provides the different-access-type teaching. Since Huang_2 discloses that the later PDU session establishment procedure uses the same PDU session parameters, and Huang teaches that S-NSSAI is the relevant parameter used to control subsequent PDU session requests, the combination teaches or at least suggests that the first and second PDU session establishment requests are associated with the same S-NSSAI.
In pages 9, Applicant’s argues that:
In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that although Huang discloses the basic framework of receiving a rejection for a PDU request, the core of claim 21-providing an indication that the rejection applies only to the current access type so as to allow an immediate attempt on another access type-is absent from Huang. The attempt to bridge this gap with Huang_2 is improper because Huang_2 solves a different technical problem (handover synchronization for invalid PDU sessions) and there is no motivation to combine these teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, independent claim 21 is submitted to be patentable over the prior art of record. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason:
Applicant's above argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Huang alone for the entire “current access type” feature. Huang teaches the basic PDU session rejection/congestion framework, including receiving a rejection or congestion cause from the network and applying the rejection condition based on network-provided control information. Huang_2 is relied upon to show the access-type aspect, namely that after a PDU session establishment rejection during movement between 3GPP and non-3GPP access, the UE may proceed with another PDU session establishment procedure over the target/different access type. See Huang [0049] and Huang_2 [0020]-[0021].
Applicant's position that Huang_2 cannot be combined because it relates to handover synchronization is not persuasive. Huang_2 is not being relied upon for its entire handover problem, but for it’s teaching of how a UE responds to a PDU session establishment rejection when different access types are involved. That teaching is directly relevant because claim 21 itself recites a current access type and another access type. Huang provides the rejection/congestion and S-NSSAI framework, while Huang_2 provides the access-type handling. Applying Huang_2's known access-type handling to Huang's PDU session rejection framework would have been a predictable use of a known PDU session procedure.
For the same reason, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of independent claim 21. Claims 27 and 33 are argued only as reciting similar feature to claim 21 and are not separately argued with particularity. Accordingly, the arguments for claims 27 and 33 are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 21. Likewise dependent claims 22-26, 28-32 and 34-38 depend from the rejected independent claims and have not been separately argued. Therefore, the rejection of these claims is maintained.
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.
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.
Claims 21-24, 26, 27, 29-31, 33-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang-Fu et al. (US 20210051515, hereinafter “Huang”) and further in view of Huang-Fu et al (US 20200120561, hereinafter “Huang_2”)
Regarding claim 21, Huang discloses,
A wireless communication method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless terminal from a wireless network node, a rejection cause (in an event that the network node is in the congestion status, the UE may receive a message with a congestion cause and a back-off timer for congestion control from the network node, [0049]) associated with a first protocol data unit session, PDU, establishment request ( the UE may be configured to transmit a request message to the network node. The request message may comprise at least one of a PDU session establishment request, [0049]) and an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies an access type (The UE may determine whether the back-off timer is applied in all PLMN according to an apply back-off timer (ABO) parameter/indicator, [0049]), and
wherein the first PDU session establishment request and the second PDU session establishment request are associated with the same single network slice selection assistance information, S-NSSAI (When the back-off timer is running, the UE may move to a different PLMN (e.g., inter-PLMN change). For example, the UE may transfer from the VPLMN to the HPLMN (e.g., non-roaming scenario). At this time, the S-NSSAI of the PDU session may also be updated from S-NSSAI_1 to S-NSSAI_2 where S-NSSAI_2 is the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1…..The UE may be configured to compare the S-NSSAI associated with the back-off timer with the S-NSSAI associated with the request message of the current/latest PDU session. For example, the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session establishment request when S-NSSAI_2 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the S-NSSAI (e.g., serving PLMN S-NSSAI or mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI) of the PDU session establishment request, [0058]-[0061]). However, Huang does not disclose, an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type, wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type. In the same field of endeavor, Huang_2 discloses, an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type (UE 101 receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network, with a 5GSM status cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist”. In response, UE 101 releases the PDU session (either locally or explicitly) over the non-3GPP access where the PDU session with PSI=1 is not inactive at the UE side, to synchronize with the network side, [0020]-[0021]), wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type (In response, UE 101 releases the PDU session (either locally or explicitly) over the non-3GPP access where the PDU session with PSI=1 is not inactive at the UE side, to synchronize with the network side. UE 101 may then initiate another PDU session establishment procedure over the target access type (e.g., 3GPP access) using the same PDU session parameters, [0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang by specifically providing an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type, wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type, as taught by Huang_2 for the purpose of handling invalid PDU session during handover procedure between non-3GPP access and 3GPP access in a mobile communication network (abstract).
Regarding claim 22, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition Huang_2 discloses
wherein the rejection cause indicates insufficient resources (UE 101 receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network, with a 5GSM status cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist”, [0021]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), further Huang discloses,
wherein the current access type comprises a 3rd generation partnership project, 3GPP, access type, or a non-3GPP access type (The 5GS supports network slicing as described in 3GPP TS 23.501, [0034]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), further Huang discloses,
receiving, by the wireless terminal, a back-off timer (in an event that the network node is in the congestion status, the UE may receive a message with a congestion cause and a back-off timer for congestion control from the network node, [0049]), wherein the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate the second PDU session establishment request over the current access type or the another access type after the back-off timer expires (the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session establishment request when the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of the S-NSSAI of the PDU session establishment request. In another example, the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session modification request when the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of the S-NSSAI of the PDU session (e.g., the current/latest PDU session), [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), further Huang discloses,
wherein the wireless network node comprises a session management function (Fig. 1; SMF 104).
Regarding claim 27, Huang discloses,
A wireless network node (Fig. 10; 1020), comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions (the network apparatus 1020 may further include a memory 1024 coupled to processor 1022 and capable of being accessed by processor 1022 and storing data therein, [0077]), execution of which by the processor causes the wireless network node to
transmit, to a wireless terminal, a rejection cause (in an event that the network node is in the congestion status, the UE may receive a message with a congestion cause and a back-off timer for congestion control from the network node, [0049]) associated with a first protocol data unit session, PDU, establishment request ( the UE may be configured to transmit a request message to the network node. The request message may comprise at least one of a PDU session establishment request, [0049]) and an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies an access type (The UE may determine whether the back-off timer is applied in all PLMN according to an apply back-off timer (ABO) parameter/indicator, [0049]), and
wherein the first PDU session establishment request and the second PDU session establishment request are associated with the same single network slice selection assistance information, S-NSSAI (When the back-off timer is running, the UE may move to a different PLMN (e.g., inter-PLMN change). For example, the UE may transfer from the VPLMN to the HPLMN (e.g., non-roaming scenario). At this time, the S-NSSAI of the PDU session may also be updated from S-NSSAI_1 to S-NSSAI_2 where S-NSSAI_2 is the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1…..The UE may be configured to compare the S-NSSAI associated with the back-off timer with the S-NSSAI associated with the request message of the current/latest PDU session. For example, the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session establishment request when S-NSSAI_2 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the S-NSSAI (e.g., serving PLMN S-NSSAI or mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI) of the PDU session establishment request, [0058]-[0061]). However, Huang does not disclose, an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type, wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type. In the same field of endeavor, Huang_2 discloses, an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type (UE 101 receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network, with a 5GSM status cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist”. In response, UE 101 releases the PDU session (either locally or explicitly) over the non-3GPP access where the PDU session with PSI=1 is not inactive at the UE side, to synchronize with the network side, [0020]-[0021]), wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type (In response, UE 101 releases the PDU session (either locally or explicitly) over the non-3GPP access where the PDU session with PSI=1 is not inactive at the UE side, to synchronize with the network side. UE 101 may then initiate another PDU session establishment procedure over the target access type (e.g., 3GPP access) using the same PDU session parameters, [0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang by specifically providing an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type, wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type, as taught by Huang_2 for the purpose of handling invalid PDU session during handover procedure between non-3GPP access and 3GPP access in a mobile communication network (abstract).
Regarding claim 29, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 27), in addition Huang_2 discloses,
wherein the rejection cause indicates insufficient resources (UE 101 receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network, with a 5GSM status cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist”, [0021]).
Regarding claim 30, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 27), further Huang discloses,
wherein the current access type comprises a 3rd generation partnership project, 3GPP, access type, or a non-3GPP access type (The 5GS supports network slicing as described in 3GPP TS 23.501, [0034]).
Regarding claim 31, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 27), further Huang discloses,
transmit, to the wireless terminal, a back-off timer (in an event that the network node is in the congestion status, the UE may receive a message with a congestion cause and a back-off timer for congestion control from the network node, [0049]), wherein the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate the second PDU session establishment request over the current access type or the another access type after the back-off timer expires (the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session establishment request when the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of the S-NSSAI of the PDU session establishment request. In another example, the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session modification request when the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of the S-NSSAI of the PDU session (e.g., the current/latest PDU session), [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 33, Huang discloses,
A wireless terminal (Fig. 10; 1010), comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions (communication apparatus 1010 may further include a memory 1014 coupled to processor 1012 and capable of being accessed by processor 1012 and storing data therein, [0077]), execution of which by the processor causes the wireless terminal to
receive, l from a wireless network node, a rejection cause (in an event that the network node is in the congestion status, the UE may receive a message with a congestion cause and a back-off timer for congestion control from the network node, [0049]) associated with a first protocol data unit session, PDU, establishment request ( the UE may be configured to transmit a request message to the network node. The request message may comprise at least one of a PDU session establishment request, [0049]) and an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies an access type (The UE may determine whether the back-off timer is applied in all PLMN according to an apply back-off timer (ABO) parameter/indicator, [0049]), and
wherein the first PDU session establishment request and the second PDU session establishment request are associated with the same single network slice selection assistance information, S-NSSAI (When the back-off timer is running, the UE may move to a different PLMN (e.g., inter-PLMN change). For example, the UE may transfer from the VPLMN to the HPLMN (e.g., non-roaming scenario). At this time, the S-NSSAI of the PDU session may also be updated from S-NSSAI_1 to S-NSSAI_2 where S-NSSAI_2 is the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1…..The UE may be configured to compare the S-NSSAI associated with the back-off timer with the S-NSSAI associated with the request message of the current/latest PDU session. For example, the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session establishment request when S-NSSAI_2 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the S-NSSAI (e.g., serving PLMN S-NSSAI or mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI) of the PDU session establishment request, [0058]-[0061]). However, Huang does not disclose, an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type, wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type. In the same field of endeavor, Huang_2 discloses, an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type (UE 101 receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network, with a 5GSM status cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist”. In response, UE 101 releases the PDU session (either locally or explicitly) over the non-3GPP access where the PDU session with PSI=1 is not inactive at the UE side, to synchronize with the network side, [0020]-[0021]), wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type (In response, UE 101 releases the PDU session (either locally or explicitly) over the non-3GPP access where the PDU session with PSI=1 is not inactive at the UE side, to synchronize with the network side. UE 101 may then initiate another PDU session establishment procedure over the target access type (e.g., 3GPP access) using the same PDU session parameters, [0020]-[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang by specifically providing an indication indicating that the rejection cause applies only to a current access type, wherein the indication indicates that the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over another access type different from the current access type, as taught by Huang_2 for the purpose of handling invalid PDU session during handover procedure between non-3GPP access and 3GPP access in a mobile communication network (abstract).
Regarding claim 34, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 33), in addition Huang_2 discloses
wherein the rejection cause indicates insufficient resources (UE 101 receives a PDU session establishment reject message from the network, with a 5GSM status cause value #54 “PDU session does not exist”, [0021]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 33), further Huang discloses,
wherein the current access type comprises a 3rd generation partnership project, 3GPP, access type, or a non-3GPP access type (The 5GS supports network slicing as described in 3GPP TS 23.501, [0034]).
Regarding claim 36, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 33), further Huang discloses,
receiving, by the wireless terminal, a back-off timer (in an event that the network node is in the congestion status, the UE may receive a message with a congestion cause and a back-off timer for congestion control from the network node, [0049]), wherein the wireless terminal is allowed to initiate the second PDU session establishment request over the current access type or the another access type after the back-off timer expires (the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session establishment request when the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of the S-NSSAI of the PDU session establishment request. In another example, the UE is not allowed to send a PDU session modification request when the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of S-NSSAI_1 associated with the back-off timer is the same as the mapped HPLMN S-NSSAI part of the S-NSSAI of the PDU session (e.g., the current/latest PDU session), [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 38, the combination Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 33), further Huang discloses,
wherein the wireless network node comprises a session management function (Fig. 1; SMF 104).
Claims 25, 32 and 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, in view of Huang_2 and further in view of Koshta et al. (US 20210368435, hereinafter “Koshta”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), however the combination does not explicitly disclose, receiving, from the wireless network node, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires.
In the same field of endeavor, Koshta discloses, receiving, from the wireless network node, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires (If the search exhausts the available PLMNs without finding one that services the essential slices (536—No), then the UE camps on the PLMN having the maximum number of slices available and starts a search timer (538). When the search timer expires (538), the UE can initiate a new search (530) for a suitable PLMN or SNPN that provides essential slice service. On the other hand, if the registration procedure reveals that the requested essential slice is supported, then the UE continues its operation on the new PLMN/SNPN (540). In an aspect, the UE initiates a PDU session establishment procedure for the PDU session associated with the essential slice, and verifies that the network accepts the UE request, [0074]-[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by specifically providing receiving, from the wireless network node, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires, as taught by Koshta for the purpose of performing a best effort to find service for the essential slice in other PLMNs or a same PLMN LTE RAT [0081].
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 27), however the combination does not explicitly disclose, transmit, to the wireless terminal, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires.
In the same field of endeavor, Koshta discloses, transmit, to the wireless terminal, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires (If the search exhausts the available PLMNs without finding one that services the essential slices (536—No), then the UE camps on the PLMN having the maximum number of slices available and starts a search timer (538). When the search timer expires (538), the UE can initiate a new search (530) for a suitable PLMN or SNPN that provides essential slice service. On the other hand, if the registration procedure reveals that the requested essential slice is supported, then the UE continues its operation on the new PLMN/SNPN (540). In an aspect, the UE initiates a PDU session establishment procedure for the PDU session associated with the essential slice, and verifies that the network accepts the UE request, [0074]-[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by specifically providing transmit, to the wireless terminal, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires, as taught by Koshta for the purpose of performing a best effort to find service for the essential slice in other PLMNs or a same PLMN LTE RAT [0081].
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 33), however the combination does not explicitly disclose, receiving, from the wireless network node, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires.
In the same field of endeavor, Koshta discloses, receiving, from the wireless network node, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires (If the search exhausts the available PLMNs without finding one that services the essential slices (536—No), then the UE camps on the PLMN having the maximum number of slices available and starts a search timer (538). When the search timer expires (538), the UE can initiate a new search (530) for a suitable PLMN or SNPN that provides essential slice service. On the other hand, if the registration procedure reveals that the requested essential slice is supported, then the UE continues its operation on the new PLMN/SNPN (540). In an aspect, the UE initiates a PDU session establishment procedure for the PDU session associated with the essential slice, and verifies that the network accepts the UE request, [0074]-[0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by specifically providing receiving, from the wireless network node, a back-off timer associated with the first PDU session establishment request, and wherein wireless terminal is allowed to initiate a second PDU session establishment request over the another access type different from the current access type before the back-off time expires, as taught by Koshta for the purpose of performing a best effort to find service for the essential slice in other PLMNs or a same PLMN LTE RAT [0081].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, in view of Huang_2 and further in view of Sugawara et al. (US 20220377693, hereinafter “Sugawara”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Huang and Huang_2 discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), however the combination does not explicitly disclose, wherein the processor causes the wireless network node to: receive, from a network slice admission control function, a network slice admission control result associated with a rejection for the first PDU session establishment request, wherein the network slice admission control result indicates a maximum number of protocol data unit sessions associated with a network slice or single network slice selection assistance information over the current access type has been reached.
In the same field of endeavor, Sugawara discloses, wherein the processor causes the wireless network node to: receive, from a network slice admission control function, a network slice admission control result associated with a rejection for the first PDU session establishment request (A requested NSSAI is an NSSAI provided from the UE to the network during the registration procedure. The requested NSSAI may be an allowed NSSAI or a configured NSSAI stored by the UE. Specifically, the requested NSSAI may be information indicating a network slice that the UE desires to access, [0114]), wherein the network slice admission control result indicates a maximum number of protocol data unit sessions associated with a network slice or single network slice selection assistance information over the current access type has been reached (The first NSSAI is information including one or multiple S-NSSAIs that the maximum number of UEs for each network slice or the maximum number of PDU sessions for each network slice has been reached. The first NSSAI may be the rejected NSSAI, may be the Allowed NSSAI, or may be the Pending NSSAI. The first NSSAI may be an NSSAI stored by the UE and/or the NW, or may be an NSSAI transmitted from the NW to the UE, [0126]-[0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by specifically providing wherein the processor causes the wireless network node to: receive, from a network slice admission control function, a network slice admission control result associated with a rejection for the first PDU session establishment request, wherein the network slice admission control result indicates a maximum number of protocol data unit sessions associated with a network slice or single network slice selection assistance information over the current access type has been reached, as taught by Sugawara for the purpose of allowing provision of a communication unit for implementing a function related to management of a maximum number of UEs and/or a maximum number of PDU sessions connected for each network slice in a 5GS (abstract).
Prior Art of the Record:
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20210250409: A method of handling multi-access (MA) Protocol data unit (PDU) session upgrade is proposed. An MA PDU session. uses one 3GPP access network or one non-3GPP access network at a time, or simultaneously one 3GPP access network and one non-3GPP access network. A UE may be served by a network slice if a corresponding Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) is included in the allowed NSSAI per Radio Access Technology (RAT) access type.
US 12225415: an access network node comprises: means for receiving, from a network function node for mobility management, at least one first network slice information, each of which is different from a second network slice information being used for a Protocol Data Unit, PDU, session with a user equipment, UE; and means for performing a redirection procedure for the UE from a first cell to a second cell which supports one of the at least one first network slice information in a case where the second network slice information is not available in the first cell.
WO 2023059096: The disclosure relates to a 5G or 6G communication system for supporting a higher data transmission rate. Embodiments herein disclose methods for handling a network slice admission control (NSAC) performed by a Network Function (NF) service consumer in a wireless network. The method includes determining that an existing Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session has been handed over from a source access to a target access. Further, the method includes performing a network slice admission control for the PDU session, based on the determination, by interacting the NF service consumer with a Network Slice Admission Control Function (NSACF) entity.
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 GOLAM SOROWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3761. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/GOLAM SOROWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights