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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed 08/04/2026. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended; no claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. The amendment of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites that the first SM message is received from the UE and requests modification or release of an already established PDU session, and that the second SM message and the indication are transmitted in response to the determination. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection of claims 1-17 over Kumar, and over Kumar in view of Ryu, presented in this Office action. Claims 18-20 are not amended; their rejection over Ryu in view of Surisetty is maintained on the same references and is restated below with the passages of those references relied upon for each limitation. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 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. The new ground of rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, set forth below, relies on Kumar alone.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 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.
The new ground of rejection relies on Kumar, not on the downlink NAS rejection of Ryu paragraphs [0322] and [0345], for refraining from delivering the SM message and for indicating the non-delivery to the sender, Kumar’s AMF withholding the SM message of the PDU session when the UE’s TAI/cell does not support the S-NSSAI (Kumar, para [0083] “then the AMF 804 may send back a 5GSM message, to the UE 202, which was not forwarded”), and relies on Ryu only for the second SM message being an N2 SM message intended for the access network.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 with respect to claims 18-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully submits that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established as to Claim 18” (Remarks, pages 8-9, paragraph 4), the rejection of claim 18 is maintained over the same references, Ryu in view of Surisetty, and the restated rejection below identifies, limitation by limitation, the passages of Ryu and Surisetty that teach each of the three limitations Applicant lists, so that all words of the claim are considered against the prior art. See MPEP § 2143.03.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “Where establishment is refused, no PDU session comes into existence, and Ryu accordingly discloses no session management procedure performed on an established PDU session, no NAS SM message received as part of such a procedure, and no user plane resources whose activation the UE forgoes” (Remarks, page 9, paragraph 1), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The restated rejection of claim 18 does not rely on the establishment refusal of Ryu paragraphs [0322] and [0345], on the service request of paragraph [0230], or on the registration request of paragraph [0180]. Ryu describes session management of PDU sessions after they are established (Ryu, para [0144] “PDU sessions may be established (e.g. upon UE 100 request), modified (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) and/or released (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) using NAS SM signaling exchanged over N1 between the UE 100 and the SMF 160”).
Ryu’s UE sends session management requests for PDU session modification (Ryu, para [0280] “A wireless device may send via a base station to an AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS transport message piggybacking a 5GSM message for session management request (e.g. PDU session establishment, PDU session modification, and/or the like)”), and receives a NAS SM message as part of the session management procedure for the PDU session (Ryu, para [0280] “The wireless device may include the old PDU session identity if the uplink NAS transport message transports a PDU session establishment request message in response to receiving a PDU session modification command message with the 5GSM cause IE set to #39”).
Ryu’s UE also does not initiate activation of user plane resources for a PDU session whose area of availability does not include the UE’s location, and paragraph [0207] is relied upon only for that behavior (Ryu, para [0207] “the UE 100 may not trigger the service request procedure for a PDU session corresponding to a LADN when the UE 100 may be outside the area of availability of the LADN. The UE 100 may not identify such PDU session(s) in the list of PDU sessions to be activated”). That the area in question is one where the network slice is not available is supplied by Surisetty, not by Ryu’s LADN, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18 below.
As to Applicant’s argument that “A reference whose stated object is to abort the connection and fall back to a legacy network does not suggest a UE that proceeds with a session management procedure for an established PDU session, as Claim 18 requires” (Remarks, pages 9-10, paragraph 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The rejection does not rely on Surisetty for the session management procedure, which is supplied by Ryu, as set forth above. Surisetty is relied upon for the teaching that the network slice is unavailable in the area where the UE is located (Surisetty, para [0043] “The registration reject message indicates to the UE (400) that the network slice corresponding to the S-NSSAI(s) is/are unavailable in the registration area or a PLMN, or a SNPN” . . . para [0044] “when the UE (400) does not have a valid registration area, the rejected S-NSSAI(s) from the current registration area is/are applicable to the tracking area on (e.g., in) which the registration reject message was received by the UE (400)”).
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Nor does Surisetty’s connection to a 4G network teach away from the combination. The disclosure of an alternative course of action for a UE whose registration is rejected does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage a UE that already has an established PDU session from continuing its session management, and Surisetty does not address such a UE at all. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP § 2145(X)(D)(1).
Turning to Applicant’s argument that “Surisetty paragraph [0005], cited against Claim 19, describes only the network’s transmission of a cause value and says nothing about any UE proceeding with any procedure, and that Ryu paragraph [0198], cited against Claim 20, describes signaling sent by an AMF to an SMF rather than signaling transmitted by a UE” (Remarks, pages 9-10, paragraph 2), the restated rejection of claims 19 and 20 relies on Ryu for the UE proceeding with the session management procedure and for the UE transmitting the signaling to the SMF (Ryu, para [0280] “The wireless device may send the uplink NAS transport message if the wireless device needs to send a control signaling message to network functions (e.g. SMF, SMS, PCF, and/or the like) via/through the AMF”), and relies on Surisetty only for the UE being located in an area where the S-NSSAI is not available (Surisetty, para [0044] “when the UE (400) does not have a valid registration area, the rejected S-NSSAI(s) from the current registration area is/are applicable to the tracking area on (e.g., in) which the registration reject message was received by the UE (400)”). Surisetty paragraph [0005] and Ryu paragraph [0198] are no longer relied upon.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “Each is allowable at least by virtue of its dependency” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 1), claims 2-7, 9-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under the new grounds set forth below, and claims 19 and 20 stand rejected for the reasons given for claim 18 and for the additional reasons set forth in their rejections below.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection of claims 1-17 set forth below. For at least these reasons, the rejection of claims 18-20 is maintained and is restated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar (US 2024/0334309 A1).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Kumar discloses: A network entity (NE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the NE to:, because Kumar teaches a network, which may be an AMF, that includes a processor coupled with a memory module, the processor of the network performing the network side operations of receiving the UE’s NAS messages and handling them according to the current cell or TAI, which means that the network is a network entity comprising at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the network entity to carry out the operations that follow: (Kumar, para [0062] “In an embodiment, the network 204 includes a processor and a memory module. The processor is coupled with the memory module. The network 204 may be at least one of a session management function (SMF) and an AMF.”).
In addition, Kumar discloses: receive, from a user equipment (UE), a first session management (SM) message requesting modification or release of an already established protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with a network slice;, as Kumar describes the processor of the network receiving UL NAS messages from the UE, and the AMF receiving from the UE a 5GSM message (i.e., “a first session management (SM) message” as claimed), which it can send back to the UE unforwarded, with the request type IE set to modification request, a request type that by its terms asks to modify a PDU session that already exists. Kumar sets that request in the scenario of an already established PDU session with the S-NSSAI whose location information does not include the UE’s cell, such that the network receives, from the UE, a first SM message requesting modification of an already established PDU session associated with a network slice: (Kumar, para [0039] “a UE may not activate a user plane for already established PDU session with that S-NSSAI if the UE is in a cell within the RA but outside the location information of the S-NSSAI” . . . para [0062] “The processor of the network 204 may receive the UL NAS message from the UE 202 over a current cell and/or a current TAI” . . . para [0083] “If the request type IE is set to “initial request”, “existing PDU session”, “modification request”, or “MA PDU request” . . . then the AMF 804 may send back a 5GSM message, to the UE 202, which was not forwarded”).
Furthermore, Kumar discloses: determine that the network slice is not supported or not available in a location area of the UE; and, since Kumar explains how the network makes the determination, from the partially allowed NSSAI list or the NS-AoS information, that the current cell or the current TAI of the UE does not support the S-NSSAI, and conditions the AMF’s handling of the 5GSM message on the UE being in a TAI/cell (i.e., “a location area of the UE” as claimed) that does not support S-NSSAI-A, whereby the network determines that the network slice is not supported in a location area of the UE: (Kumar, para [0019] “bar sending of the CP data of the at least one S-NSSAI to the UE, based on determination from at least one of the partially allowed NSSAI list and the NS-AoS information that at least one of a current cell and a current TAI does not support the S-NSSAI” . . . para [0083] “the UE 202 is in TAI/cell which does not support the S-NSSAI-A”).
Moreover, Kumar discloses: transmit a second SM message and an indication that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE, in response to the determination that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE, in that Kumar shows that, when the UE is in a TAI/cell that does not support S-NSSAI-A, the AMF sends back to the UE the 5GSM message it did not forward, a second SM message, together with a 5GMM cause or a separate reject cause (i.e., “an indication” as claimed) indicating that the TAI or cell is not supported for S-NSSAI-A, with the result that the AMF transmits a second SM message and an indication that the network slice is not supported in the location area of the UE, in response to the determination that the network slice is not supported in the location area of the UE: (Kumar, para [0083] “then the AMF 804 may send back a 5GSM message, to the UE 202, which was not forwarded and a 5GMM cause . . . or separate reject cause to indicate that the TAI or cell is not supported for this S-NSSAI-A”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Kumar discloses: The NE of claim 1, wherein: the NE comprises an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), as Kumar describes the network that performs the operations of claim 1 being at least one of an SMF and an AMF, the network function that sends back the 5GSM message and the cause being the AMF 804, such that the NE comprises an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF): (Kumar, para [0062] “In an embodiment, the network 204 includes a processor and a memory module. The processor is coupled with the memory module. The network 204 may be at least one of a session management function (SMF) and an AMF.” . . . para [0083] “then the AMF 804 may send back a 5GSM message, to the UE 202, which was not forwarded and a 5GMM cause”).
Regarding claim 8, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to: receive, from a user equipment (UE), a first session management (SM) message requesting modification or release of an already established protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with a network slice; determine that the network slice is not supported or not available in a location area of the UE; and transmit a second SM message and an indication that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE, in response to the determination that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE. Claim 8 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 8, (Original) the claim recites: The processor of claim 8, wherein: the processor comprises an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF). Claim 14 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A method performed by a network function, the method comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a first session management (SM) message requesting modification or release of an already established protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with a network slice; determining that the network slice is not supported or not available in a location area of the UE; and transmitting a second SM message and an indication that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE, in response to the determining that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2024/0334309 A1) in view of Ryu (US 2022/0264444 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, although Kumar teaches the AMF receiving from the UE, in the UL NAS transport, a 5GSM message whose request type IE may be set to modification request and handling that 5GSM message according to whether the UE’s TAI/cell supports S-NSSAI-A: (Kumar, para [0083]), Kumar does not expressly teach the first SM message is an N1 SM message that is received from the UE and encapsulated in an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) transport message.
Nevertheless, Kumar in view of Ryu discloses (Original) The NE of claim 1, wherein: the first SM message is an N1 SM message that is received from the UE and encapsulated in an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) transport message as Ryu describes the wireless device sending the AMF an uplink NAS transport message that piggybacks a 5GSM message for a session management request such as PDU session modification, the payload container type of that message identifying the payload as N1 SM information, such that the first SM message is an N1 SM message received from the UE and encapsulated in an uplink NAS transport message (Ryu, para [0280], “A wireless device may send via a base station to an AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS transport message piggybacking a 5GSM message for session management request (e.g. PDU session establishment, PDU session modification, and/or the like)” . . . para [0280], “the payload container type may comprise a N1 SM information, SMS, LTE positioning protocol (LPP) message container”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry the UE’s 5GSM message in Kumar as N1 SM information piggybacked in the uplink NAS transport message that Ryu describes, and to have Kumar’s AMF pass that N1 SM message on to the SMF serving the PDU session in the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext request that Ryu’s AMF uses for the same purpose, in order to use the standard 5G signaling through which the AMF relays session management requests between the UE and the SMF. Kumar already describes the 5GSM message arriving in a NAS transport message with a request type IE and being returned from the payload container IE of the DL NAS transport message, and already contemplates the SMF determining the area the UE belongs to from information received from the AMF, but Kumar does not spell out the encapsulation or the AMF to SMF message; Ryu supplies both, as the ordinary way its AMF receives the 5GSM message from the UE and forwards the N1 SM container with the user location information to the SMF. Applying Ryu’s signaling to Kumar’s AMF is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and it would have yielded the predictable result of the AMF receiving the UE’s modification or release request as an N1 SM message and relaying it, with its determination, to the SMF that manages the PDU session. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since Kumar and Ryu describe the same 5G core network functions exchanging the same NAS and N11 messages.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Kumar in view of Ryu discloses (Original) The NE of claim 2, wherein: the second SM message is transmitted to a session management function (SMF) and encapsulated in a PDU session update request message, as Ryu further discloses the AMF, for a PDU session that already has an SMF, invoking the Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext request, which carries the N1 SM container received from the UE together with the PDU session ID and the user location information. In the combination set out for claim 2, the second SM message that Kumar’s AMF transmits after its determination is that N1 SM message, sent on to the SMF of the existing PDU session rather than back to the UE, whereby the second SM message is transmitted to an SMF and encapsulated in a PDU session update request message (Ryu, para [0247], “Nsmf_PDUSession_UpdateSMContext request (SUPI, DNN, S-NSSAI, PDU session ID, AMF 155 ID, request type, N1 SM container (PDU session establishment request), user location information, access type, RAT type, PEI)” . . . para [0247], “if the AMF 155 already has an association with an SMF 160 for the PDU session ID provided by the UE 100 (e.g. when request type indicates existing PDU session), the AMF 155 may invoke the” . . . para [0248], “The AMF 155 may forward the PDU session ID together with the N1 SM container containing the PDU session establishment request received from the UE 100”).
Thus, Kumar and Ryu are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, although Kumar teaches the AMF sending back, with a cause indicating that the TAI or cell is not supported for S-NSSAI-A, the 5GSM message of the PDU session that it did not forward: (Kumar, para [0083]), Kumar does not explicitly disclose the second SM message is an N2 SM message that is intended for an access network (AN).
Yet, Kumar in view of Ryu discloses (Original) The NE of claim 1, wherein: the second SM message is an N2 SM message that is intended for an access network (AN) in that Ryu shows the SMF sending the AMF N2 SM information for the PDU session, which carries information the AMF forwards to the (R)AN, and the AMF sending that N2 SM information to the (R)AN within the N2 PDU session request, with the result that the SM message the AMF handles for the PDU session is an N2 SM message that is intended for an access network (Ryu, para [0262], “the N2 SM information may carry information that the AMF 155 may forward to the (R)AN 105” . . . para [0263], “the AMF 155 may send the NAS message 1310 that may comprise PDU session ID and PDU session establishment accept targeted to the UE 100 and the N2 SM information received from the SMF 160 within the N2 PDU session request 1310 to the (R)AN 105”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kumar’s check of whether the UE’s TAI/cell supports the S-NSSAI to the N2 SM information that Ryu’s SMF sends through the AMF for the (R)AN, so that Kumar’s AMF handles that N2 SM message as it handles the UE’s 5GSM message, not forwarding it and transmitting it back with the cause, in order to avoid setting up access network resources for a PDU session of a network slice that is not supported where the UE is located. Kumar’s network function that blocks data of the PDU session likewise tells the function that sent it that it cannot be delivered. Kumar teaches that the network side shall not send data belonging to the PDU session of the S-NSSAI when the current cell or TAI does not support that S-NSSAI, and that the UE may not activate a user plane for an already established PDU session outside the location information of the S-NSSAI; Ryu teaches that the N2 SM information the SMF sends through the AMF is what establishes the (R)AN resources for the PDU session. Extending Kumar’s area check to Ryu’s N2 SM information is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and it would have yielded the predictable result of the AMF withholding access network signaling for the unsupported slice and returning the SM message with its cause. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the AMF in both references already sits between the SMF and the (R)AN and already makes the TAI/cell determination for the same PDU session.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4, (Original) Kumar discloses The NE of claim 4, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to refrain from delivering the N2 SM message to the AN in response to determining that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE, as Kumar further discloses the AMF not forwarding the SM message of the PDU session when the UE is in a TAI/cell that does not support S-NSSAI-A, and the network side likewise not sending the control plane data belonging to the PDU session of the S-NSSAI based on the determination that the current cell or TAI does not support it. The N2 SM message and the AN are those of the combination set out for claim 4, Ryu’s N2 SM information for the (R)AN, so that the NE refrains from delivering the N2 SM message to the AN in response to determining that the network slice is not supported in the location area of the UE (Kumar, para [0083] “then the AMF 804 may send back a 5GSM message, to the UE 202, which was not forwarded” . . . para [0086] “by SMF/AMF shall not send the control plane (CP) data belonging to the PDU session of the S-NSSAI to the UE (i.e., data in DL/MT direction) based on the determination from the partially allowed NSSAI list or NS-AoS that current cell and/or current TAI does not support the respective S-NSSAI”).
For these reasons, Kumar and Ryu are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Kumar discloses (Original) The NE of claim 5, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to cause the NE to indicate to a sender of the first SM message that the N2 SM message was not delivered to the AN because the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE, as Kumar further discloses the AMF returning to the UE, the sender of the 5GSM message, the SM message it did not forward together with a cause indicating that the TAI or cell is not supported for S-NSSAI-A, the UE learning from it that the SM message was not forwarded because its TAI/cell does not support the S-NSSAI. The N2 SM message and the AN are those of the combination set out for claim 4, which means that the NE indicates to a sender of the first SM message that the N2 SM message was not delivered to the AN because the network slice is not supported in the location area of the UE (Kumar, para [0083] “then the AMF 804 may send back a 5GSM message, to the UE 202, which was not forwarded and a 5GMM cause . . . or separate reject cause to indicate that the TAI or cell is not supported for this S-NSSAI-A” . . . para [0083] “The UE 202 passes an indication to the 5GSM sublayer that the 5GSM message was not forwarded due to the UE 202 is in TAI/cell which does not support the S-NSSAI-A”).
Therefore, Kumar and Ryu are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, the claim recites: (Original) The processor of claim 8, wherein: the first SM message is an N1 SM message that is received from the UE and encapsulated in an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) transport message. Claim 9 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9, the claim recites: (Original) The processor of claim 9, wherein: the second SM message is transmitted to a session management function (SMF) and encapsulated in a PDU session update request message. Claim 10 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 8, the claim recites: (Original) The processor of claim 8, wherein: the second SM message is an N2 SM message that is intended for an access network (AN). Claim 11 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 11, the claim recites: (Original) The processor of claim 11, wherein: the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to refrain from delivering the N2 SM message to the AN in response to determining that the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 12, the claim recites: (Original) The processor of claim 12, wherein: the at least one controller is configured to cause the processor to indicate to a sender of the first SM message that the N2 SM message was not delivered to the AN because the network slice is not supported or not available in the location area of the UE. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 15, the claim recites: (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein: the first SM message is an N1 SM message that is received from the UE and encapsulated in an uplink non-access stratum (NAS) transport message. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, the claim recites: (Original) The method of claim 16, wherein: the second SM message is transmitted to a session management function (SMF) and encapsulated in a PDU session update request message. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US 2022/0264444 A1) in view of Surisetty (US 2021/0329539 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu discloses: (Original) A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:, since Ryu explains a wireless device of a 5G system that comprises one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the wireless device to perform its operations, the modules of the disclosure being software routines executed by such a hardware machine, whereby the UE comprises at least one memory and at least one processor coupled with the memory and configured to cause the UE to carry out the operations that follow: (Ryu, para [0005] “FIG. 3 is a system diagram of an example wireless device and a network node in a 5G system” . . . para [0357] “modules may be implemented as a software routine written in a computer language configured to be executed by a hardware machine” . . . claim 20 “the wireless device comprises one or more processors and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to”).
Furthermore, Ryu discloses: transmit signaling for a session management (SM) procedure for an established protocol data unit (PDU) session associated with a network slice,, in that Ryu shows PDU sessions being modified or released, after they are established, by NAS SM signaling between the UE and the SMF, the wireless device sending the AMF an uplink NAS transport message that piggybacks a 5GSM message for a session management request such as PDU session modification, and each PDU session being associated with an S-NSSAI, with the result that the UE transmits signaling for a session management procedure for an established PDU session associated with a network slice: (Ryu, para [0144] “PDU sessions may be established (e.g. upon UE 100 request), modified (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) and/or released (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) using NAS SM signaling exchanged over N1 between the UE 100 and the SMF 160” . . . para [0262] “In an example, a PDU session may be associated to an S-NSSAI and a DNN” . . . para [0280] “A wireless device may send via a base station to an AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS transport message piggybacking a 5GSM message for session management request (e.g. PDU session establishment, PDU session modification, and/or the like)”).
In addition, Ryu discloses: receive a non-access stratum (NAS) SM message as part of the SM procedure for the PDU session; and, given that Ryu sets out the NAS SM signaling by which a PDU session is modified or released being exchanged in both directions over N1 between the UE and the SMF, and the wireless device receiving a PDU session modification command message for the PDU session, so that the UE receives a NAS SM message as part of the SM procedure for the PDU session: (Ryu, para [0144] “PDU sessions may be established (e.g. upon UE 100 request), modified (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) and/or released (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) using NAS SM signaling exchanged over N1 between the UE 100 and the SMF 160” . . . para [0280] “The wireless device may include the old PDU session identity if the uplink NAS transport message transports a PDU session establishment request message in response to receiving a PDU session modification command message with the 5GSM cause IE set to #39”).
Moreover, Ryu discloses: perform an action according to the NAS SM message without initiating activation of user plane resources for the PDU session, because Ryu teaches the PDU session being modified or released according to the NAS SM signaling the UE exchanges with the SMF, a modification or release that the UE carries out by session management signaling alone, and the UE not triggering the service request procedure for a PDU session whose area of availability does not include the UE’s location and not identifying that PDU session among the PDU sessions to be activated, which means that the UE performs an action according to the NAS SM message without initiating activation of user plane resources for the PDU session: (Ryu, para [0144] “PDU sessions may be established (e.g. upon UE 100 request), modified (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) and/or released (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) using NAS SM signaling exchanged over N1 between the UE 100 and the SMF 160” . . . para [0207] “the UE 100 may not trigger the service request procedure for a PDU session corresponding to a LADN when the UE 100 may be outside the area of availability of the LADN. The UE 100 may not identify such PDU session(s) in the list of PDU sessions to be activated”).
Although Ryu teaches the UE not triggering the service request procedure for, and not identifying among the PDU sessions to be activated, a PDU session whose area of availability does not include the UE’s location: (Ryu, para [0207]), Ryu stops short of disclosing wherein the network slice is not supported or not available in a location area of the UE.
Nonetheless, Ryu in view of Surisetty discloses wherein the network slice is not supported or not available in a location area of the UE; as Surisetty describes the network indicating to the UE that the network slice corresponding to the S-NSSAI is unavailable in the registration area, the rejected S-NSSAI for the current registration area applying to the tracking area in which the UE received that indication, such that the network slice is not supported or not available in a location area of the UE (Surisetty, para [0043], “The registration reject message indicates to the UE (400) that the network slice corresponding to the S-NSSAI(s) is/are unavailable in the registration area or a PLMN, or a SNPN” . . . para [0044], “when the UE (400) does not have a valid registration area, the rejected S-NSSAI(s) from the current registration area is/are applicable to the tracking area on (e.g., in) which the registration reject message was received by the UE (400)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the handling Ryu’s UE gives a PDU session whose area of availability does not include the UE’s location, continuing its session management signaling while not initiating activation of its user plane resources, to a PDU session whose network slice Surisetty’s network indicates is unavailable in the UE’s registration area and tracking area, in order to avoid repeated requests for resources that the network will not provide where the UE is located. Ryu teaches that, for a PDU session whose area does not include the UE’s location, the SMF may keep the PDU session while rejecting the activation of its user plane connection, and the UE does not ask for that activation; Surisetty teaches that the availability of a network slice is itself tied to the registration area and the tracking area of the UE, and seeks to stop the UE from repeating requests that fail for that reason and waste power. Applying Ryu’s area-based handling to Surisetty’s slice availability is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way, and it would have yielded the predictable result of a UE that keeps the session management of its established PDU session going where the slice is not available without trying to activate its user plane there. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since both references describe the same 5G UE, AMF and NAS signaling, and Ryu’s UE already decides which PDU sessions to activate from the area information it holds.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 18, Ryu discloses (Original) The UE of claim 18, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to proceed with the SM procedure for the PDU session, as Ryu further discloses the wireless device sending the uplink NAS transport message that piggybacks the 5GSM message of its session management request, and the NAS SM signaling by which the PDU session is modified or released continuing between the UE and the SMF, with the result that the UE proceeds with the SM procedure for the PDU session (Ryu, para [0144] “PDU sessions may be established (e.g. upon UE 100 request), modified (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) and/or released (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) using NAS SM signaling exchanged over N1 between the UE 100 and the SMF 160” . . . para [0280] “A wireless device may send via a base station to an AMF, an uplink (UL) NAS transport message piggybacking a 5GSM message for session management request (e.g. PDU session establishment, PDU session modification, and/or the like)”).
In addition, Ryu in view of Surisetty discloses even though the UE is located in an area where single network slice selection assistance information (S-NSSAI) is not supported or not available, as Surisetty further discloses the rejected S-NSSAI for the current registration area applying to the tracking area where the UE is located, so that the UE is located in an area where the S-NSSAI is not supported or not available (Surisetty, para [0044], “when the UE (400) does not have a valid registration area, the rejected S-NSSAI(s) from the current registration area is/are applicable to the tracking area on (e.g., in) which the registration reject message was received by the UE (400)”).
Consequently, Ryu and Surisetty are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 19, Ryu discloses (Original) The UE of claim 19, wherein: the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit the signaling to a session management function (SMF) as part of the PDU session, as Ryu further discloses the wireless device sending the uplink NAS transport message when it needs to send a control signaling message to a network function such as the SMF through the AMF, the NAS SM signaling of the PDU session being exchanged between the UE and the SMF, so that the UE transmits the signaling to a session management function as part of the PDU session (Ryu, para [0144] “PDU sessions may be established (e.g. upon UE 100 request), modified (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) and/or released (e.g. upon UE 100 and 5GC request) using NAS SM signaling exchanged over N1 between the UE 100 and the SMF 160” . . . para [0280] “The wireless device may send the uplink NAS transport message if the wireless device needs to send a control signaling message to network functions (e.g. SMF, SMS, PCF, and/or the like) via/through the AMF”).
Furthermore, Ryu in view of Surisetty discloses even though the UE is located in an area where S-NSSAI is not supported or not available, as Surisetty further discloses the rejected S-NSSAI for the current registration area applying to the tracking area where the UE is located, which means that the UE is located in an area where the S-NSSAI is not supported or not available (Surisetty, para [0044], “when the UE (400) does not have a valid registration area, the rejected S-NSSAI(s) from the current registration area is/are applicable to the tracking area on (e.g., in) which the registration reject message was received by the UE (400)”).
For these reasons, Ryu and Surisetty are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 18 above.
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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
