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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed July 2, 2025.
This application is a 371 of PCT/KR2023/020640 filed on 12/14/23.
Status of Claims
A preliminary amendment was filed on 8/8/2025, where Applicant amended the claims and added new claims 16-20. Claims 1-20 remained as pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 7/2/25 are acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372:
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-5,10-14, drawn to a session management function SMF, and corresponding to at least Fig 1 #160.
Group II, claims 6-9,15-20, drawn to a policy control function PCF, and corresponding to at least Fig 1 #180.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: The inventions although related are shown to be distinct, do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants of each other. The inventions lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
A telephone call was made to Patent Attorney Changhoi Koo (reg# 72819) on 8/21/2026 to request an oral election to the above mentioned restriction requirement. A provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 6-9,15-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Claims 1-5,10-14 (Group I) withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 6-9,15-20 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.
In claim 6:
lines 6-7 recite “… the second network slice identifier is an identifier of a network slice which is replaced by the first network slice identifier”. However, if the second identifier is replaced by the first identifier then the second identifier is no longer part of the session and management operations. It is therefore unclear if the second identifier is still part of the claim operations ;
lines 9-18 recite “second slice identifier”. However, it is unclear what second identifier is referred to since it was replaced. Perhaps Applicant means the first slice identifier? Or perhaps there is a identifier relationship that needs to be claimed. The claims are therefore unclear.
Claim 15 suffers the same deficiency as claim 6 above and are rejected based on the same rationale.
The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the parent claims and fail to provide a remedy, and are thus rejected based on the same rationale.
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 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 6-9,15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US Publication 20200221541) in view of Ianev et al (US Publication 20230362766).
In reference to claim 6, Yan teaches a method for supporting establishment of a protocol data unit (PDU) session of a network slice by a policy control function (PCF) in a communication network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a session management function (SMF), a SM policy creation request message including network slice identifier, wherein the identifier is replaced; (see at least ¶s 230,231, which teach a PCF receiving a policy control creation request including network slice identifier, also see at least ¶s 213-217 which teach a replacement network slice identifier)
transmitting, to a unified data repository (UDR), identification a message requesting policy-related information on the network identifier and policy-related information for the network identifier; (see at least ¶s 233,234, which teach transmitting a query message to a UDR requesting policy information)
receiving, from the UDR, the policy-related information for the network identifier and the policy-related information for the network identifier; (see at least ¶s 236,237, which teach receiving a response from the UDR with the policy information) and
transmitting, to the SMF, a first response message in response to the SM policy creation request message, wherein the first response message includes policy information, based on the policy-related information for the network identifiers (see at least ¶s 238,239, which teach transmitting a policy creation response to the SMF which includes the policy information for the network slice).
Yan fails to explicitly teach the request including a first network slice identifier and a second network slice identifier, and wherein the second network slice identifier is an identifier of a network slice which is replaced by the first network slice identifier. However, Ianev teaches a redirection procedure for a PDU session, and discloses a request message with multiple alternative slice identifiers for replacing an original slice identifier (see Ianev, at least Abstract & at least ¶s 53,54,64-68). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yan based on the teachings of Ianev for the purpose of improving mobility management based on best available network resources.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Yan, at least ¶s 240,241, which teach transmitting a request to a BSF related to the network slice, and at least ¶s 275-277, which teach sending a response related to the network slice.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Yan, at least ¶s 375-377, which teach requesting another policy related information, and receiving a response.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Yan, at least ¶s 273-274, which teach transmitting to the UDR a message related to the UE context related to the network slice.
In reference to claim 16, this is taught by Yan, at least ¶s 275-277, which teach receiving a response from the UDR.
Claims 15,17-20 are slight variations of the rejected claims 6-9,16 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
August 27, 2026
