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 in response to communication filed on 7/14/2025.
Claims 8 and 11 are pending.
Claim 9-10 has been amended.
Claim 8 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 7/14/2025 with respect to claim(s) 8 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/14/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vemuri (US 11265254 B1) in view of Wang (US 20230336424 A1) in view of Li (US 20220159605 A1) in view of Stockert (US 20210168031 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 8, a communication method for a communication apparatus, the communication method comprising:
Vemuri teaches making a request allocate a first network slice for communication that uses the first protocol based on characteristics of data communication that uses the first protocol, (Vemuri, col.8, lines 29-65; Fig. 1A-1F; when determining a URSP, network device 115 may map application traffic (of one or more applications) to a network slice based on a network protocol type utilized by the application traffic. In other words, network device 115 may identify a network slice based on a network protocol type (e.g., based on one or more characteristics of the network protocol type). The one or more characteristics may include a transmission rate of the network protocol type, an amount of bandwidth utilized by the network protocol type, network security functions associated with the network protocol type (e.g., packet processing functions), and/or another characteristic of the network protocol type. Network device 115 may allocate the network slice for application traffic based on the network protocol type utilized by the application traffic. Network device 115 may allocate a second network slice for second application traffic (of one or more second applications) that utilizes the second network protocol type.) wherein the characteristics of the data communication that uses the first protocol include a receive window size to be used in the first protocol and a Round Trip Time (RTT) associated with the first protocol; ([examiner notes: the 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03.])
and in a case of performing data communication by using a second protocol that runs on the TCP in the communication apparatus, making a request to allocate a second network slice for communication that uses the second protocol based on characteristics of data communication that uses the second protocol, (Vemuri, col.8, lines 29-65; Fig. 1A-1F; when determining a URSP, network device 115 may map application traffic (of one or more applications) to a network slice based on a network protocol type utilized by the application traffic. In other words, network device 115 may identify a network slice based on a network protocol type (e.g., based on one or more characteristics of the network protocol type). The one or more characteristics may include a transmission rate of the network protocol type, an amount of bandwidth utilized by the network protocol type, network security functions associated with the network protocol type (e.g., packet processing functions), and/or another characteristic of the network protocol type. Network device 115 may allocate the network slice for application traffic based on the network protocol type utilized by the application traffic. Network device 115 may allocate a second network slice for second application traffic (of one or more second applications) that utilizes the second network protocol type. [examiner notes: The 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03.])
wherein in a state in which the first network slice and the second network slice have been allocated, (Vemuri, col.3, lines 25-36; assume that a single network slice has been allocated for the application traffic (of the applications utilized by UE 105). Further, assume that a modem, a memory, or another component of UE 105 stores information identifying a UE route selection policy (URSP) that indicates the single network slice allocated for the application traffic.)
(1) in a case where the communication apparatus performs data transmission by using the first protocol, data transmission that is directed to the first network slice is performed, and (Vemuri, col.8, lines 29-65, lines 65-67; col.9, lines 1-11; Fig. 1A-1F; network device 115 may allocate a first network slice for first application traffic (of one or more first applications) that utilizes the first network protocol type, allocate a second network slice for second application traffic (of one or more second applications) that utilizes the second network protocol type. Network device 115 may determine the URSP based on mapping the application traffic to the network slices. The URSP may include information that causes the modem or another component of UE 105 to transmit the application traffic via the network slice. The URSP may include a plurality of rules that causes the modem or other component of UE 105 to transmit the application traffic via the network slices (e.g., a first rule that causes the modem to transmit the first application traffic via the first network slice.[examiner notes: The 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03.])
(2) in a case where the communication apparatus performs data transmission by using the second protocol, data transmission that is directed to the second network slice is performed, and (Vemuri, col.8, lines 29-65, lines 65-67; col.9, lines 1-11; Fig. 1A-1F; network device 115 may allocate a first network slice for first application traffic (of one or more first applications) that utilizes the first network protocol type, allocate a second network slice for second application traffic (of one or more second applications) that utilizes the second network protocol type. Network device 115 may determine the URSP based on mapping the application traffic to the network slices. The URSP may include information that causes the modem or another component of UE 105 to transmit the application traffic via the network slice. The URSP may include a plurality of rules that causes the modem or other component of UE 105 to transmit the application traffic via the network slices (e.g., a first rule that causes the modem to transmit the first application traffic via the first network slice.[examiner notes: The 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03.])
Vemuri does not teach making a request to the orchestrator to allocate network slice; in a case of performing data communication by using a first protocol that runs on a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in the communication apparatus, wherein the first protocol is a Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) and the first network slice is a network slice in which 524 Mbps throughput is guaranteed.
Wang however in the same field of computer networking teaches in a case of performing data communication by using a first protocol that runs on a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in the communication apparatus,(Wang, [0048], the application program may be capable of executing a plurality of services, and the terminal may determine the current service of the application program by monitoring a data protocol used by the application program, for example, the terminal determines that the current service of the application program is a video service if the data protocol used by the application program is the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), or the Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTSP), the terminal determines that the current service of the application program is a payment service if the data protocol used by the application program is the Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Protocol, and the terminal determines that the current service of the application program is a communication service if the data protocol used by the application program is the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP). If the application type to which the current service of the application program belongs changes, it is indicated that the requirement of the application program for the network slices changes, so that at least one network slice is selected from the network slices corresponding to the changed application type and allocated to the application program, and a process of selecting and allocating the at least one network slice to the application program is similar to the operation 102 described in the first embodiment, and thus will not be described in detail here. [examiner notes: RTSP protocol, which controls media playback, uses TCP to maintain an end-to-end connection for its control commands. The 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03])
wherein the first protocol is a Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) (Wang, [0048], the application program may be capable of executing a plurality of services, and the terminal may determine the current service of the application program by monitoring a data protocol used by the application program, for example, the terminal determines that the current service of the application program is a video service if the data protocol used by the application program is the User Datagram Protocol (UDP), the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), or the Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTSP). [examiner notes: The 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Stockert to specify in a case of performing data communication by using a first protocol that runs on a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) in the communication apparatus, wherein the first protocol is a Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP) Wang as taught by Wang. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to matching network slices with application types in advance (Wang, [0005]).
Vemuri does not teach making a request to the orchestrator to allocate network slice; and the first network slice is a network slice in which 524 Mbps throughput is guaranteed.
Li however in the same field of computer networking teaches and the first network slice is a network slice in which 524 Mbps throughput is guaranteed. (Li, [0378] Alternatively, the network may send to the UE, the network capability profile(s) for network slices that closely match the requested network capability profile(s). For instance, if the UE asked for guaranteed DL throughput network capability with 10 Gbps the network may be able to scan the matching network capability profile(s) for available network slices and if the best available network capability for guaranteed DL throughput is 8 Gbps, the network may send the network capability profile(s) to the UE to indicate if it can accept the network capabilities profile(s) and agree to register with a network slice. [examiner notes: The 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Stockert to specify the first network slice is a network slice in which 524 Mbps throughput is guaranteed as taught by Li. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enable more dynamic and flexible operation in the service based architecture, and may improve the programmability of the service based architecture for the end user (i.e., UE and AS) (Li, [0198]).
Vemuri does not teach making a request to the orchestrator to allocate network slice;
Stockert however in the same field of computer networking teaches making a request to the orchestrator to allocate network slice; (Stockert, [0028], [0089], Fig.3-4; applications, as a part of execution, can request allocation of a network slice having certain characteristics to facilitate successful program execution. The method 800 comprises utilizing, by device 450A, first resources of a first network slice 415A allocated by local slice manager 328 in accordance with an allocation protocol associated with network device 370 of a provider network 390 and a resource configuration generated based on characteristics of the device 450A, context 410A, and slice history 377 data related to device 450A.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Stockert to specify making a request to the orchestrator to allocate network slice as taught by Stockert. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to improve the performance of other devices in the network (Stockert, [0059]).
2. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vemuri in view of Wang in view of Li in view of Stockert further in view of You (US 20230300702 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, the method according to claim 8,
Vemuri-Wang-Li-Stockert teach in a case of performing data communication by using a third protocol that runs on the TCP in the communication apparatus, making a request to the orchestrator to allocate a third network slice for communication that uses the third protocol, wherein the third protocol is a protocol used by a file browser, (Vemuri, col.2, lines 60-65; col.3, lines 1-5; the network protocol types (utilized by the application traffic of the applications) may include one or more of a transmission control protocol (TCP), a user datagram protocol (UDP), a quick UDP Internet connections protocol (QUIC), a hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), a file transfer protocol (FTP), and/or another network protocol type. Col.8, lines 50-65, Network device 115 may allocate the network slice for application traffic based on the network protocol type utilized by the application traffic. For example, network device 115 may allocate a first network slice for first application traffic (of one or more first applications) that utilizes the first network protocol type, allocate a second network slice for second application traffic (of one or more second applications) that utilizes the second network protocol type, allocate a third network slice for third application traffic (of one or more third applications) that utilizes the third network protocol type, and so on. The first network slice may correspond to the single network slice currently allocated for the application traffic of the applications of UE 105. The second network slice and the third network slice may be different than the single network slice. [examiner notes: the File Transfer Protocol (FTP) runs on the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) to ensure reliable and ordered data delivery. FTP uses two TCP connections for communication. the 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. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system... claims. See MPEP § 2111.04 and MPEP § 2143.03.])
Vemuri-Wang-Li-Stockert do not teach and the third network slice is a slice in which throughput is not guaranteed and delay is acceptable.
You however in the same field of computer networking teaches and the third network slice is a slice in which throughput is not guaranteed and delay is acceptable. (You, [0026], a UE (or a subscriber) may subscribe to one or more network slices with a service operator. For example, an Internet-of-Things (IoT) UE may subscribe to a network slice supporting very low throughput yet a large number of devices; a UE configured for vehicular communication may subscribe to a network slice supporting data transmission with very low latency and ultra-reliability.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the system/method of Stockert to specify the third network slice is a slice in which throughput is not guaranteed and delay is acceptable as taught by You. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to performing UE authentication and registration with the core network, and in particular, to supporting secure interactions between the UE and the target AMF when the UE is re-allocated to the target AMF (You, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449