DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on October 24, 2024. As set forth therein, claims 1-4 are cancelled and new claims 5-7 have been added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 24, 2024 and October 29, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: As illustrated in Figure 7, reference characters S900 and S901 are used to illustrate transmission between the SMF and UPF. The specification describes the S900 transmission procedure in paragraph [0302]. It is noted that reference was made to “S910” in paragraph [0302] but the drawings refer to S900. The specification describes the S901 transmission procedure in paragraph [0303], but references “S912”. It is noted that S912 is a later step and is for a communications between the SMF and AMF.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0296], the specification states “the SM may transmit an RA via the UPF as the anchor point”. It is noted that “SM” represents session management message. The Examiner notes that paragraph [0296] is describing the process illustrated in Figure 6. Therefore, it appears that “SM” should reference the Session Management Function (SMF).
In paragraph [0318], the specification states “the SM transmits a PDU session release notification message to the AMF”. The Examiner notes that this paragraph is describing the S912 process in Figure 7. As shown therein, the SMF transmits a PDU session release notification message. Therefore, the “SM” should be the “SMF”.
In paragraph [0302], the specification states “the SMF transmits a Session release request message to the UPF before relocation (S910), and initiates the session release procedure between the SMF and the UPF.” The Examiner notes that reference character “S910” is not illustrated in Figure 7. It appears that the refence character should be “S900” See the above objection to the Drawings.
In paragraph [0303],the specification states “the UPF transmits a Session release response message to the SMF (S912).” The Examiner notes that this step is illustrated as “S901” in Figure 7. Step S912 relates to a transmission between the SMF and AMF with respect to a PDU session release notification.
In paragraph [0326],the specification states, “Note that procedures after the SMF receives the PDU session release request message may be the procedure of S910 and the following procedures described with reference to FIG. 7.” The Examiner notes that “S910” is not illustrated in Figure 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Th Examiner notes that claim 5 recites “indicating cause value “reactivation requested”” in lines 11 and 16. Claim 7 recites a similar limitation.
It is not clear whether the “reactivation requested” term is part of the claim limitation since using quotation marks makes it appear that “reactivation requested” is only an example of the indication and not part of the claim. Thus, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined since the significance of using quotation marks for “reactivation requested” is not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godin et al. US Patent Pub. 2023/0142879 in view of Velev et al. US Patent Pub. 2023/0164881.
Regarding claim 5:
A User Equipment (UE) comprising:
With reference to Figure 2 and paragraph [0037], Godin discloses “[t]he user terminal 200 is connected to a base station or gNB 206 which provides the user terminal a connection to data network 204 via one or more User Plane Functions 208. The user terminal 200 is further connected to Core Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF 210, which is a control plane core connector for (radio) access network and can be seen from this perspective as the 5G version of Mobility Management Entity, MME, in LTE..”
transmission and reception circuitry, wherein the transmission and reception circuitry is configured to transmit a registration request message including first control information in a registration procedure,
Godin discloses [a]t every registration area update the user terminal can indicate a requested NSSAI which is a list of requested S-NSSAI(s).” See paragraph [0043]. paragraph [0101] which discloses the UE performing post-handover registration. See also paragraph [0121]. In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0037], the UE communicates with the data network, base station and AMF. Thus, the UE includes transmission and reception circuitry. In addition, paragraphs [0079-0080] discloses that the user terminal can transmit a request and receive a request. Thus, the UE includes transmission and reception circuitry. See also paragraph [0121] and claim 46.
in a case that a Session and Service Continuity (SSC) mode of an existing Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session is SSC mode 3 and a first Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) of the PDU session needs to be replaced,
See paragraph [0094] which discloses “[t]he re-mapped slice selected to replace slice 10 depends on the list of slices which can be remapped from slice 10 (for example 11 and 21) and the slices supported by the user terminal according to its Allowed NSSAI”.
See also “consider a case where user terminal has a PDU session with active resources existing for the user terminal for a slice X and the slice X can be re-mapped to slice Y according to the remapping table. The AMF sends an update message to SMF including a new indication (end slice X, try slice Y). The SMF then triggers an SSC mode 3 procedure towards the user terminal: NAS PDU Session Modification Command (Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value)), where NAS indicates Non-Access Stratum and PCO indicates Protocol Configuration Option field. In this message, the SMF may add a new (end slice X, try alternate slice Y) information towards the user terminal so that the user terminal subsequently triggers the setup of PDU session 2 as part of SSC mode 3 using slice Y (instead of slice X). See paragraph [0065]. See also paragraph [0079].
See paragraph [0043] which discloses “[s]lices are identified by Single-Network Slice Assistance Information, S-NSSAI. Packet Data Unit, PDU, sessions of user terminals utilising slices are associated with a single S-NSSAI. During the attach procedure of user terminal to a network, the configured NSSAI is sent from core network to the user terminal. At every registration area update the user terminal can indicate a requested NSSAI which is a list of requested S-NSSAI(s).” See also paragraphs [0101]-[0104].
the transmission and reception circuitry is configured to receive a PDU SESSION MODIFICATION COMMAND message, the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION COMMAND message including an S-NSSAI different from the first S-NSSAI and a cause value indicating "reactivation requested", and
Godin explains “consider a case where user terminal has a PDU session with active resources existing for the user terminal for a slice X and the slice X can be re-mapped to slice Y according to the remapping table. The AMF sends an update message to SMF including a new indication (end slice X, try slice Y). The SMF then triggers an SSC mode 3 procedure towards the user terminal: NAS PDU Session Modification Command (Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value)), where NAS indicates Non-Access Stratum and PCO indicates Protocol Configuration Option field. In this message, the SMF may add a new (end slice X, try alternate slice Y) information towards the user terminal so that the user terminal subsequently triggers the setup of PDU session 2 as part of SSC mode 3 using slice Y (instead of slice X). See paragraph [0065]. As set forth therein, a reason (cause) is provided to the device.
In addition, Godin teaches “AMF further detects that PDU session 2 utilising slice 12 is to be remapped to slice 13 and is not active. AMF is configured to send 524 a delete message to SMF2 502 indicating “end of slice 12 and try remapping to slice 13”…. Because AMF received the “end slice 10, 12, 14” indicators in PSR 518 message, AMF newly still includes 526 the slice, S-NSSAI, 10, 12, 14 in the Allowed NSSAI towards the user terminal.” See paragraph [0099] – [0101].
See also paragraph [0102] and[0108] which discloses that it was known to include a “cause value” to the user terminal. See also paragraph [0077] which discloses “the message transmitted towards the user terminal is the Non-Access Stratum PDU Session Release including the cause (re-establish to same data network).” See also paragraph [0106]
The Examiner notes that to the extent the cause value does not specifically indicate “reactivation requested” the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to indicate this specific indication.
For example, Velev is directed to the activation or deactivation of network slices in a network. See paragraphs [0003] and [0060]. As explained in paragraph [0145] a message is sent towards the UE. This message includes UE ID, session ID and cause values (e.g. activation, modify, deleted) and other parameters. As explained in paragraph [0003], Velev is directed for the activation of network slice. See also paragraph [0244] and [0274]-[0275]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a specific cause value such as “reactivation requested”. As explained above, Godin already discloses that it was known to include a cause value with respect to the mapping of network slices (see paragraph [0108]). In addition, as explained in paragraphs [0137-0138], Godin discloses of information regarding the associated slice to be replaced and the slice replacing the slice to be released. In addition, messages to the UE which provide instructions regarding releasing a session are also provided. Therefore, it would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically receive a “re-activation” indication as a cause value. As explained by Godin, an activation indication as it relates to network slices was already known in this field of endeavor. Velev in paragraph [0068] also discloses of activated, modified and release as functions that are performed. Thus, by providing a cause value, the UE will be informed of specific information and instructions regarding the PDU session as it pertains to the network slice.
in a case that the SSC mode of the existing PDU session is SSC mode 2 and a second S-NSSAI of the PDU session needs to be replaced, the transmission and reception circuitry is configured to receive a PDU SESSION RELEASE COMMAND message, the PDU SESSION RELEASE COMMAND message including an S-NSSAI different from the second S-NSSAI and the cause value indicating "reactivation requested".
Godin discloses “consider a case where user terminal has a PDU session without active resources existing for the user terminal for slice X and slice X can be re-mapped to slice Y according to remapping table: the AMF sends a delete message to SMF including a new indication (end slice X, try slice Y). SMF behaves as in the case above, or, it may alternatively trigger SSC mode 2 instead of SSC mode 3.” See paragraph [0066]
See also paragraphs [0079-0080] which discloses “[i]n step 430, the apparatus is configured to receive a request from network entity responsible for session management in the network to trigger SSC mode 3 or SSC mode 2 for a packet data unit session comprising information on an associated slice to be released and a slice replacing the released slice; In step 432, the apparatus is configured to transmit the message to establish the new packet data unit session as part of the triggered SSC mode 3/2 process using for the packet data unit session an associated slice which is the slice previously indicated as the replacing slice, regardless of the User Equipment Route Selection Policy, URSP, contained in the apparatus.”
See also paragraph [0102] and[0108] which discloses that it was known to include a “cause value” to the user terminal. See also paragraph [0077] which discloses “the message transmitted towards the user terminal is the Non-Access Stratum PDU Session Release including the cause (re-establish to same data network).” See also paragraph [0106]
As explained above, Velev is directed to the activation or deactivation of network slices in a network. See paragraphs [0003] and [0060]. As explained in paragraph [0145] a message is sent towards the UE. This message includes UE ID, session ID and cause values (e.g. activation, modify, deleted) and other parameters. As explained in paragraph [0003], Velev is directed for the activation of network slice. See also paragraph [0244] and [0274]-[0275]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art include a cause value of ‘reactivation requested’ as explained above.
Regarding claim 7:
A communication control method performed by a User Equipment (UE), the communication control method comprising:
With reference to Figure 2 and paragraph [0037], Godin discloses “[t]he user terminal 200 is connected to a base station or gNB 206 which provides the user terminal a connection to data network 204 via one or more User Plane Functions 208. The user terminal 200 is further connected to Core Access and Mobility Management Function, AMF 210, which is a control plane core connector for (radio) access network and can be seen from this perspective as the 5G version of Mobility Management Entity, MME, in LTE..” See also Figure 4a-4c and its related method description on paragraphs [0069]-[0080].
transmitting a registration request message including first control information in a
registration procedure,
Godin discloses [a]t every registration area update the user terminal can indicate a requested NSSAI which is a list of requested S-NSSAI(s).” See paragraph [0043]. See also paragraphs [0101] and [0121]. In addition, as set forth in paragraph [0037], the UE communicates with the data network, base station and AMF.
in a case1 that a Session and Service Continuity (SSC) mode of an existing Protocol Data
Unit (PDU) session is SSC mode 3 and a first Single Network Slice Selection Assistance
Information (S-NSSAI) of the PDU session needs to be replaced,
See paragraph [0094] which discloses “[t]he re-mapped slice selected to replace slice 10 depends on the list of slices which can be remapped from slice 10 (for example 11 and 21) and the slices supported by the user terminal according to its Allowed NSSAI”.
See also “consider a case where user terminal has a PDU session with active resources existing for the user terminal for a slice X and the slice X can be re-mapped to slice Y according to the remapping table. The AMF sends an update message to SMF including a new indication (end slice X, try slice Y). The SMF then triggers an SSC mode 3 procedure towards the user terminal: NAS PDU Session Modification Command (Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value)), where NAS indicates Non-Access Stratum and PCO indicates Protocol Configuration Option field. In this message, the SMF may add a new (end slice X, try alternate slice Y) information towards the user terminal so that the user terminal subsequently triggers the setup of PDU session 2 as part of SSC mode 3 using slice Y (instead of slice X). See paragraph [0065].
See paragraph [0043] which discloses “[s]lices are identified by Single-Network Slice Assistance Information, S-NSSAI. Packet Data Unit, PDU, sessions of user terminals utilising slices are associated with a single S-NSSAI. During the attach procedure of user terminal to a network, the configured NSSAI is sent from core network to the user terminal. At every registration area update the user terminal can indicate a requested NSSAI which is a list of requested S-NSSAI(s).” See also paragraphs [0101]-[0102].
receiving a PDU SESSION MODIFICATION COMMAND message, the PDU SESSION MODIFICATION COMMAND message including an S-NSSAI different from the first S-NSSAI and a cause value indicating "reactivation requested", and
Godin explains “consider a case where user terminal has a PDU session with active resources existing for the user terminal for a slice X and the slice X can be re-mapped to slice Y according to the remapping table. The AMF sends an update message to SMF including a new indication (end slice X, try slice Y). The SMF then triggers an SSC mode 3 procedure towards the user terminal: NAS PDU Session Modification Command (Cause, PCO (PDU Session Address Lifetime value)), where NAS indicates Non-Access Stratum and PCO indicates Protocol Configuration Option field. In this message, the SMF may add a new (end slice X, try alternate slice Y) information towards the user terminal so that the user terminal subsequently triggers the setup of PDU session 2 as part of SSC mode 3 using slice Y (instead of slice X). See paragraph [0065]. As set forth therein, a reason (cause) is provided to the device.
In addition, Godin teaches “AMF further detects that PDU session 2 utilising slice 12 is to be remapped to slice 13 and is not active. AMF is configured to send 524 a delete message to SMF2 502 indicating “end of slice 12 and try remapping to slice 13”…. Because AMF received the “end slice 10, 12, 14” indicators in PSR 518 message, AMF newly still includes 526 the slice, S-NSSAI, 10, 12, 14 in the Allowed NSSAI towards the user terminal.” See paragraph [0099] – [0101].
See also paragraph [0102] and[0108] which discloses that it was known to include a “cause value” to the user terminal. See also paragraph [0077] which discloses “the message transmitted towards the user terminal is the Non-Access Stratum PDU Session Release including the cause (re-establish to same data network).” See also paragraph [0106]
The Examiner notes that to the extent the cause value does not specifically indicate “reactivation requested” the Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to indicate this specific indication.
For example, Velev is directed to the activation or deactivation of network slices in a network. See paragraphs [0003] and [0060]. As explained in paragraph [0145] a message is sent towards the UE. This message includes UE ID, session ID and cause values (e.g. activation, modify, deleted) and other parameters. As explained in paragraph [0003], Velev is directed for the activation of network slice. See also paragraph [0244] and [0274]-[0275]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a specific cause value such as “reactivation requested”. As explained above, Godin already discloses that it was known to include a cause value with respect to the mapping of network slices (see paragraph [0108]). In addition, as explained in paragraphs [0137-0138], Godin discloses of information regarding the associated slice to be replaced and the slice replacing the slice to be released. In addition, messages to the UE which provide instructions regarding releasing a session are also provided. Therefore, it would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art to specifically receive a “re-activation” indication as a cause value. As explained by Godin, an activation indication as it relates to network slices was already known in this field of endeavor. Velev in paragraph [0068] also discloses of activated, modified and release as functions that are performed. Thus, by providing a cause value, the UE will be informed of specific information and instructions regarding the PDU session as it pertains to the network slice.
in a case that the SSC mode of the existing PDU session is SSC mode 2 and a second
S-NSSAI of the PDU session needs to be replaced, receiving a PDU SESSION RELEASE
COMMAND message, the PDU SESSION RELEASE COMMAND message including an
S-NSSAI different from the second S-NSSAI and the cause value indicating "reactivation
requested".
Godin discloses “consider a case where user terminal has a PDU session without active resources existing for the user terminal for slice X and slice X can be re-mapped to slice Y according to remapping table: the AMF sends a delete message to SMF including a new indication (end slice X, try slice Y). SMF behaves as in the case above, or, it may alternatively trigger SSC mode 2 instead of SSC mode 3.” See paragraph [0066]
See also paragraphs [0079-0080] which discloses “[i]n step 430, the apparatus is configured to receive a request from network entity responsible for session management in the network to trigger SSC mode 3 or SSC mode 2 for a packet data unit session comprising information on an associated slice to be released and a slice replacing the released slice; In step 432, the apparatus is configured to transmit the message to establish the new packet data unit session as part of the triggered SSC mode 3/2 process using for the packet data unit session an associated slice which is the slice previously indicated as the replacing slice, regardless of the User Equipment Route Selection Policy, URSP, contained in the apparatus.”
See also paragraph [0102] and[0108] which discloses that it was known to include a “cause value” to the user terminal. See also paragraph [0077] which discloses “the message transmitted towards the user terminal is the Non-Access Stratum PDU Session Release including the cause (re-establish to same data network).” See also paragraph [0106]
As explained above, Velev is directed to the activation or deactivation of network slices in a network. See paragraphs [0003] and [0060]. As explained in paragraph [0145] a message is sent towards the UE. This message includes UE ID, session ID and cause values (e.g. activation, modify, deleted) and other parameters. As explained in paragraph [0003], Velev is directed for the activation of network slice. See also paragraph [0244] and [0274]-[0275]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art include a cause value of ‘reactivation requested’ as explained above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Godin in view of Velev and further in view of Li et al. US Patent 2022/0159605.
Regarding claim 6:
The UE according to claim 5, wherein the first control information is UE capability information to be transmitted in a case that the UE supports network slice replacement.
Godin does not specifically disclose wherein the first control information is UE capability information to be transmitted in a case that the UE supports network slice replacement.
The Examiner notes that Velev discloses that UE capabilities are exchanged with the network in order to determine the process flow (see figure 7 and 8) to follow. See paragraph [0127]. Thus, it would have been obvious to include information regarding UE capability information since it is used in order to determine which capabilities the UE supports.
Nonetheless, Li discloses “ UE may send a network capability configuration request to configure network capability(ies) for supporting its applications, and the UE may receiving a network capability configuration response with the identity of the network slice that supports the desired network capabilities.” See paragraph [0211]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit UE capability information. As set forth in step 432 of Godin (see above), the user equipment transmits information regarding the associate slice for the packet data session. Godin explains that the associated slice is a slice that was indicated as a replacement slice. Thus, Godin teaches that it was known for information to indicate network slice replacement. As explained by Li, sending capability information with respect to a network slice was known and therefore, it would have been obvious to include this information. The Examiner finds that this would have yielded a predictable results since both Godin and Li is directed to the replacement of network slices (see Godin above) and paragraph [0198] of Li. As explained by Li, the capability information makes it easier to configured the network with respect to the replacement of network slices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OVIDIO ESCALANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 6:00 AM to 3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See MPEP 2111.04(II) which discloses, “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” The Examiner notes that this claim recites “in the case” and recites two ‘in case’ limitations. One in which the case is a SSC mode 3 and the other in which the case is a SSC mode 2. It is noted that in accordance with MPEP 2111.04(II), the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met.
Prosecution Insights