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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed on 03/17/2026.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18, 20-27 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 15, and 22 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14, and 22-24 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 15-16, 18, 20-21, and 25-27 is/are allowed.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 10,12, 14, and 22, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO_2018184504_A1_Xia (with English translation).
Regarding claim 10, Xia discloses a method, performed by a second node, for handling scaling of a network slice in a communications network, the second node operating in the communications network (Xia, translation, page 13, 11th paragraph to page 14, 7th paragraph, the NFVO is corresponding to the claimed “second node”), the method comprising: obtaining, from a third node operating in the communications network, a request to scale a network slice (Xia, translation, page 13, last paragraph, “S202. The OSS/BSS sends a second NS instantiation request to the NFVO”. The second NS instantiation request is corresponding to the claimed “request to scale a network slice”. Also read page 3, last paragraph, page 6, 3rd paragraph. The OSS/BSS is corresponding to the claimed “third node”); determining whether or not to forward the request to a first node operating in the communications network, the determining being based on an amount of available resources in the communications network to scale the network slice being below a threshold (Xia, translation, page 14, 6th paragraph, “S206. The sends a VNF instantiation request to the VNFM corresponding to the VNF instance of the NS instance resource pool”; page 12, 2nd paragraph, “After the NFVO monitors that the dynamic change of the virtual resource occupied by the NS exceeds a predetermined threshold, or when the NFVO receives the specific NS LCM operation request initiated by the OSS/BSS, the NFVO directly from the VNF instance including the different virtual resource specifications and/or embedded In the resource pool of the NS instance, select a semi-finished VNF instance and/or a nested NS instance that meets the resource requirements of the NSLCM operation request to assemble or update the NS instance”. The VNFM is corresponding to the claimed “second node”); and forwarding the request to the first node, based on a result of the determining (Xia, translation, page 14, 6th – 7th paragraphs, “S206. The sends a VNF instantiation request to the VNFM corresponding to the VNF instance of the NS instance resource pool… The VNF instantiation request is used to instantiate the VNF instance in the NS instance resource pool, and the VNF instantiation request includes the VNF instance identification information and the second VNF instantiation parameter”. And page 3, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Xia discloses the method of claim 10, the method further comprising: providing, to the first node, data regarding provision of network slice services in the communications network (Xia, translation, page 14, 7th paragraph, “The VNF instantiation request is used to instantiate the VNF instance in the NS instance resource pool, and the VNF instantiation request includes the VNF instance identification information and the second VNF instantiation parameter”. And page 3, 3rd paragraph).
Regarding claim 14, Xia discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program, comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out the method of claim 10 (Xia, translation, page 19, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 22, Xia discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 10, and the second node comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising instructions (Xia, translation, page 5, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 24, Xia discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO_2018184504_A1_Xia (with English translation) in view of US_20190123963_A1_Tang.
Regarding claim 11, Xia discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: obtaining an indication of a response to the forwarded request from the first node (Xia, translation, page 14, 9th paragraph, “S207. The VNFM returns a VNF instantiation response to the NFVO”), but does not disclose the indication being based on a cost effectiveness of the network slice.
Tang discloses indication being based on a cost effectiveness of the network slice (Tang paragraph 152, “Because the slice management module may be deployed in a VNFM…”, paragraph 93, “The slice management module 501 may make a unified elastic scaling decision based on different policies. The policies may be at least one of policies such as SLA evaluation, a return on investment ratio (ROI)…”, paragraph 94, “…the slice management module 501 may comprehensively consider SLA information, ROI information, and the like of each network slice, and find out, by using an optimal search algorithm, an elastic scaling policy that enables each network slice to reach global optimization”).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Tang’s the VNFM can make elastic scaling decision based on different policies which including the return on investment ratio in Xia’s system to balance the trade-off between Quality of Service guarantees and operational costs. This method for improving the system of Xia was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Tang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Xia and Tang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 23, Xia and Tang disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 15-16, 18, 20-21, and 25-27 is/are allowed.
The reference US_20190123963_A1_Tang, teaches a user sends a request to a slice management module, which indicating modification of a resource orchestration ratio parameter in a network slice instance, where the request carries an identifier of the to-be-modified network slice instance and a new value of the resource orchestration ratio parameter; the slice management module modify a value of the resource orchestration ratio parameter in a designated network slice instance based on the request; and the slice management module returns a parameter update acknowledgement message to the user (Tang figure 8, paragraphs 9, 17, 132, 72, 188).
The reference US_20180124660_A1_Zhang, teaches It would be advantageous that a specific network slice can be dynamically instantiated/terminated or scaled out/in to support dynamic and flexible business model and efficient resource utilization… As another example, in case the size of a user group to an existing dedicated network slice is decreasing to certain small scale, this active dedicated network slice customized for a specific type of service/application may need to be terminated because the economy of scale is lost. And if the ongoing user traffic on the dedicated slice is not redirected to another slice (such as a default slice) while the dedicated slice is torn down, then user experience will be seriously impacted. On the other hand, if the dedicated slice is maintained until the last user left while the size of the user group decreased rather slowly, then it would be questionable for network operator to make revenue from the network slice business (Zhang paragraph 37).
The reference US_20200177460_A1_Xu, teaches a network slice management method which includes: receiving, by a first management unit, a network slice management request, where the network slice management request carries instance information or indication information of a transport network manager; and sending, by the first management unit, a transmission management request to a corresponding transport network manager based on the instance information of the transport network manager, where the transmission management request is used to deploy a transmission network (Xu figure 2, paragraphs 8, 59-60).
The art of record does not suggest the respective claim combinations together and nor would the respective claim combinations be obvious with: “obtaining, from a second node operating in the communications network, a request to scale a network slice during a time period; obtaining a predictability model of a probability of obtaining a further request to scale another network slice during the time period… and determining, based on the information indicating the cost effectiveness and the obtained predictability model, whether or not to scale the network slice; and providing to the second node an indication indicating a result of the determination” as stated in independent claim 1, and similar limitations as stated in independent claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights