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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20210227392) in view of Qiao (WO 2021119627), and further in view of Lee (US 20200396678).
Regarding claim(s) 1/6/9/14, Zhu teaches A method performed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) ([Fig.3], AMF) in a wireless communication system, comprising:
receiving ([Fig.3, step S301 and 0084], “A terminal device sends a session establishment request to an AMF network element.”), from a UE ([Fig.3], terminal device), ... a first message including protocol data unit (PDU) session identifier (ID) ([0086], “the session establishment request message includes a PDU session identifier (identifier, ID) and the S-NSSAI of the first network slice.” And [Fig.1], radio access network (RAN) provide wireless communication to a UE, the UE communicates with a AMF via the RAN, the RAN includes a base station.);
transmitting ([0092], “S303. The AMF network element requests the SMF network element to create a session management context.”), to a network entity ([0089], “The AMF network element selects an SMF network element.”), a second message ([0092], the AMF transmits a message relates to “session management context.”) ...
receiving ([0102], “S307. The SMF network element sends ... update indication information to the AMF.”), from the network entity ([Fig.3], SMF), a third message ([0102], “update indication information”) including the (S-NSSAI) ([0103], “The update indication information is used to instruct the AMF network element to delete the S-NSSAI corresponding to the first network slice from the first Allowed NSSAI, to generate second Allowed NSSAI.”) associated with the PDU session identifier ([0086], “the session establishment request message includes a PDU session identifier (identifier, ID).”);
determining ([0106], “the AMF network element deletes, based on the update indication information in step S307, the S-NSSAI corresponding to the first network slice from the first Allowed NSSAI, to generate the second Allowed NSSAI ... the second Allowed NSSAI includes the S-NSSAI-2.”) an allowed NSSAI ([0106], “S-NSSAI-2” is a network slice belongs to second allowed NSSAI.) based on the S-NSSAI ([0106], “first Allowed NSSAI”); and
transmitting, to the UE, a fourth message including the allowed NSSAI ([0107], “S311. The AMF network element sends the second Allowed NSSAI to the terminal device” via the RAN.).
However, Zhu does not teach base station, and requesting single- network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) associated with the PDU session identifier.
In an analogous art, Qiao teaches receiving, from a base station ([Fig.23], RAN), a first message including a protocol data unit (PDU) session identifier (ID) ([0369], “the UE may send to an AMF a NAS message comprising at least one of: S-NSSAI(s) (e.g. the first S-NSSAI), DNN, PDU Session ID, Request type, or N1 SM container (PDU session establishment request).”);
transmitting ([0370], the AMF may “send to the SMF a message (e.g. a PDU session establishment request, a PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request) comprising at least one of: SUPI, DNN, S-NSSAI(s) (e.g. the first S-NSSAI) and/or network slice instance identifier(s), PDU Session ID.”), to a network entity ([Fig.23], SMF), a second message ([0370], “a message (e.g. a PDU session establishment request, a PDUSession_CreateSMContext Request)”) for requesting single- network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) associated with the PDU session identifier ([0371], “based on the first S-NSSAI of the PDU session establishment request message ... the SMF may determine to reject the PDU session establishment request for the first S-NSSAI for the first PLMN.”);
receiving ([0374], “the SMF may send to the UE via the AMF, a PDU session response message ... 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.”), from the network entity ([Fig.23], SMF), a third message ([0374], “a PDU session response message.”) including the S-NSSAI associated with the PDU session identifier ([0374], “maximum number of PDU sessions for the first S-NSSAI for the first PLMN.”);
determining an allowed NSSAI based on the S-NSSAI ([0374], “the PDU session reject message may comprise the second allowed NSSAI, wherein the second allowed NSSAI comprises the second allowed S-NSSAI.”); and
transmitting, to the base station, a fourth message including the allowed NSSAI ([0375], “the UE may use the second allowed S-NSSAI for the PDU session based on ... the second allowed S-NSSAI.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhu to specify a request with a NSSAI as taught by Qiao. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to establish a PDU session.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 4/12, Zhu teaches wherein the network entity is a session management function (SMF) ([0092], “S303. The AMF network element requests the SMF network element to create a session management context.”),
wherein the second message is a PDU session context request message ([0092], “S303. The AMF network element requests the SMF network element to create a session management context.”), and
wherein the third message is a PDU session context response message ([0102], “S307. The SMF network element sends the authentication result or update indication information to the AMF network element.”).
Regarding claim(s) 5/13, Zhu teaches wherein a fifth message including at least one of a request slice ([0086], S-NSSAI of the network slice) and a terminal ID is transmitted from the terminal to the base station ([0086], “the terminal device sends the session establishment request to the AMF network ...The first Allowed NSSAI includes S-NSSAI of a first network slice. For example, the session establishment request message includes a PDU session identifier (identifier, ID) and the S-NSSAI of the first network slice.”), and
wherein the fourth message is transmitted from the base station to the terminal ([0107], “S311. The AMF network element sends the second Allowed NSSAI to the terminal device” via the base station.).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Zhu teaches wherein a fourth message including the S-NSSAI is transmitted from a network entity to the AMF ([0103], “The update indication information is used to instruct the AMF network element to delete the S-NSSAI corresponding to the first network slice from the first Allowed NSSAI, to generate second Allowed NSSAI.”).
Claim(s) 2-3, 8, 10-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Qiao, and further in view of Lee (US 20200396678).
Regarding claim(s) 2/8/10/15, Lee teaches wherein the network entity ([0108], “In operation 209, the AMF 120 may discover an AMF previously serving the UE 100, that is, the old AMF 200, based on the received identifier of the UE 100 (e.g., SUPI or 5G-GUTI).”) is a previously selected AMF ([0108], “the old AMF 200”) or mobility management entity (MME),
wherein the second message is a terminal information request message ([0108], “In operation 212, the AMF 120 may transmit a Namf_Communication_UEContextTransfer message requesting the UE context to the old AMF 200.”), and
wherein the third message is a terminal information response message ([0108], “the old AMF 200 may include the UE context of the UE 100 in the Namf_Communication_UEContextTransfer response message transmitted in operation 215.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhu to specify old AMF as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to retrieve UE context.
Regarding claim(s) 3/11, Lee teaches wherein the previously selected AMF or MME is identified based on information associated with the terminal ID included in the first message ([0108], “In operation 209, the AMF 120 may discover an AMF previously serving the UE 100, that is, the old AMF 200, based on the received identifier of the UE 100 (e.g., SUPI or 5G-GUTI). In operation 212, the AMF 120 may transmit a Namf_Communication_UEContextTransfer message requesting the UE context to the old AMF 200.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Zhu to specify old AMF as taught by Lee. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to retrieve UE context.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims filed on 06/29/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection in instant Office action does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the Applicant’s arguments.
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 ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights