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 Claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2025 and 11/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 12/03/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlova et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0276211), in view of Lau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0058984), and further in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0232579).
As per claim 1, Kozlova teaches a method (Kozlova: paragraph 0009; a method comprising obtaining one or more network slice subnet templates (NSSTs); defining a network slice template (NST) based on the one or more NSSTs; and deploying a network slice in accordance with the NST) comprising:
receiving a selection of a network slice template from a list of one or more network slice templates for a network (Kozlova: paragraph 0148; receiving, by the processing circuitry and from the user, a selection of one or more network slice subnet templates of the SMO catalogue of network slice subnet templates (i.e. list of network slice templates));
in response to the selection of the network slice template, receiving for input into the network slice template (Kozlova: paragraph 0046; service template selection screen includes template icons 304A-304H (collectively “template icons 304”) that each represent a different service template defined in service templates 110…A user desiring to provision a new communication service may utilize user interface 106 to select one of template icons 304 that most closely represents the type of communication service the user desires to provision…paragraph 0139; receiving, by the processing circuitry and from the user via the user interface, an input; and modifying the one or more pre-configured NSSTs with the input to obtain the one or more NSSTs) one or more of: a network slice name; a network slice type; a network slice domain; a network slice resource sharing level; or a network slice coverage area (Kozlova teaches at least in figs. 3B and 3C; Network Slice Template Name and Type: eMBB);
creating, by a processor, a network slice based upon the received input into the network slice template (Kozlova: paragraphs 0037-0038, 0120-0121; UI 106 uses Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) technology and graph layout libraries to allow a user to create configurable and dynamic layouts…a user interface may allow a user to customize label details and network details of a template for a network slice, sub-slice, or service…The network slice template may be used to create a slice that may be tailored for a particular purpose).
However Kozlova does not explicitly mention retrieving at least one domain specific network service, wherein the at least one domain specific network service is already deployed on the network; receiving a selection from among the at least one domain specific network service; and the selection from among the at least one domain specific network service.
However Lau:
retrieving at least one domain specific network service (Lau: paragraph 0072; gNB 210 may receive, network slice data (e.g., network slice data 505 of FIG. 5) from core network 215 (e.g., AMF 220 and/or PCF 254) for each network slice available through gNB 210…paragraph 0057; Network slice data 505 may include, for example, data used to compile slice ID database 400, such as a slice ID, slice characteristics, and an AMF instance address for each network slice available via a particular gNB 210), wherein the at least one domain specific network service is already deployed on the network (Lau: paragraph 0073; Using, for example, slice ID database 400, gNB 210 may attempt to match the requested network slice characteristics with characteristics of available network slices…paragraph 0047; Slice ID database 400 may be stored locally in UE 110 and gNB 210 (e.g., in memory 315). In one implementation, slice ID database 400 may be updated dynamically by each UE 110…paragraph 0053; Available field 430 may include a real-time (or near-real-time, such as no more than a half-second delay) indication of whether a network slice for a particular entry 401 can be assigned to a UE 110), and
receiving a selection from among the at least one domain specific network service (Lau: paragraph 0026; gNB 210 may receive and store network slice characteristics which may be broadcast to UE devices 110 and/or used to select a preferred network slice 150…paragraph 0057; Network slice data 505 may include data used to compile slice ID database 400, such as a slice ID, slice characteristics, and an AMF instance address for each network slice available via a particular gNB 210…paragraph 0060; gNB 210 may use the service and/or slice characteristics from the R-NSSAI, in conjunction with a locally stored table of network slice data 505 (e.g., slice ID database 400), to select an appropriate slice ID. Using slice ID database 400, for example, gNB 210 may identify the IP address for the appropriate AMF 220 that corresponds to the slice ID. See also Kozlova: paragraph 0046; A user desiring to provision a new communication service may utilize user interface 106 to select one of template icons 304 that most closely represents the type of communication service the user desires to provision); and
the selection from among the at least one domain specific network service (Lau: paragraph 0026; gNB 210 may receive and store network slice characteristics which may be broadcast to UE devices 110 and/or used to select a preferred network slice 150…paragraph 0060; gNB 210 may use the service and/or slice characteristics from the R-NSSAI, in conjunction with a locally stored table of network slice data 505 (e.g., slice ID database 400), to select an appropriate slice ID. Using slice ID database 400, for example, gNB 210 may identify the IP address for the appropriate AMF 220 that corresponds to the slice ID. See also Kozlova: paragraph 0046; A user desiring to provision a new communication service may utilize user interface 106 to select one of template icons 304 that most closely represents the type of communication service the user desires to provision).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Lau with the teachings as in Kozlova. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide significant impact on network performance and user experience (Lau: paragraph 0011).
However Kozlova and Lau do not explicitly mention retrieving the at least one domain specific network service comprises retrieving (a) information regarding whether the at least one domain specific network service is shared or dedicated and (b) information regarding performance parameters for each domain of the at least one domain specific network service, wherein the at least one domain specific network service includes a radio access network (RAN) domain, a core domain, or a transport domain.
However Lee teaches:
retrieving the at least one domain specific network service comprises retrieving (a) information regarding whether the at least one domain specific network service is shared or dedicated (Lee: paragraph 0011; network slices may be configured according to a one-to-one basis in which each application service has its own dedicated network slice) and (b) information regarding performance parameters for each domain of the at least one domain specific network service (Lee: paragraph 0036; the metrics may pertain to performance metrics associated with a network (e.g., access network 105, external network 115, core network 120, a network slice, a portion of a network slice (e.g., a RAN slice, a core slice, etc.), metrics pertaining to end device 130 (e.g., mobility (e.g., velocity, location, speed, direction, etc.), requested application service, etc.), and/or other types of metrics that may be relevant to provision and manage network slices), wherein the at least one domain specific network service includes a radio access network (RAN) domain, a core domain, or a transport domain (Lee: paragraph 0010; The performance of a network slice may be reliant on multiple networks, such as a RAN, a core network);
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Lee with the teachings as in Kozlova and Lau. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to provision and manage various network slices that may support a diverse array of application services based on performance metric, service level agreement (SLA), and quality of service (QoS) requirements across multiple network domains (Lee: paragraph 0011).
As per claim 2, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing, by the processor, a graphical user interface (GUI) to be output by a user interface (UI) (Kozlova: paragraph 0039; interface screen 202 includes graphical elements representing components used to implement a network slice), the GUI comprising:
the list of one or more network slice templates configured to design a network slice (Kozlova: fig. 3C and paragraphs 0050, 0076, 0079; provide a user with the capability to design and manage slice templates or blueprints in an interactive and visual design studio…drag-and-drop functionality for designing NSSTs. Also paragraph 0126; NST catalog (i.e. list of network slice template));
updating the GUI (Kozlova: paragraphs 0114, 0116; Upon receiving the template, the validator service performs checks and updates the designer view provided by UI 106 with the result), the GUI comprising: a create new slice user input field (Kozlova: fig. 3A and paragraphs 0046-0047; control interface element 310 includes an “add template” component that, when selected, causes provisioning portal 104 to present a user interface to configure a new service template ); and in response to the selection of the network slice template from the list of one or more network slice templates, updating the GUI, the GUI configured to receive for input into the network slice template one or more of:
a first user input field configured to receive the network slice name (Kozlova: figs. 3A-3C and paragraph 0050; network slice template field 330 can be used to change the network slice template); a second user input field configured to receive the network slice type; a third user input field configured to receive the network slice domain: a fourth user input field configured to receive the network slice resource sharing level; or a fifth user input field configured to receive the network slice coverage area (Kozlova: figs. 3A-3C and paragraphs 0046-0048, 0050; Service template definition screen 318 displays attributes of the selected service template. Examples of such attributes include the priority of network traffic carried by a network slice created using the template (e.g., “20”), a type of network traffic carried by the network slice (e.g., “eMBB”)…general information portion 326 may include service type field 329 that can be utilized to change the service type of the communication service to be provisioned from the default provided by the selected template).
As per claim 3, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising: in response to receiving a user input for one or more of the first through fifth user input field, updating the GUI, the GUI comprising: one or more user selection fields configured to be modified to design a network slice service profile, where each user selection field represents a modifiable domain parameter (Kozlova: paragraph 0127; the user defines one or more communication services by combining one or more NSTs with a Service Profile or SLA. The designed CSTs are stored in an SMO CST Catalog of database 108 and made available for ordering…paragraph 0061 and figs 3A-3G; user can modify the parameters).
As per claim 4, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: converting each modifiable domain parameter for each network slice domain identified in the third user input field to a slice profile parameter (Kozlova: paragraph 0061 and figs 3A-3G; user can modify the parameters).
As per claim 5, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: in response to the conversion of each modifiable domain parameter for each network slice domain identified in the third user input field to the slice profile parameter, updating the GUI, the GUI comprising: one or more network slice subnet user selection fields configured to allow a user to select a domain specific subnet (Kozlova: paragraph 0092; the user interface of FIGS. 10A-10C enables a user to design a multi-domain slice or slice subnet… UI 106 provides a design studio that enables users to design slice templates or slice subnet templates of multiple domains, such as RAN, Core, Transport Network, Value-Added Services (e.g., IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS))).
As per claim 6, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 5, wherein: each network slice subnet user selection field contains subnets determined to be available for each domain (Kozlova: paragraphs 0096-0097; a user may design, via UI 106, a slice template by connecting domain-specific slice subnets all the way from RAN to Core to IMS to provide an end-to-end service).
As per claim 7, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: in response to the selection of the domain specific subnet for each domain, determining whether one or more user selected domain specific subnets are capable of deployment (Kozlova: paragraph 0085; an administrator may use the design studio provided by UI 106 to create domain-specific slice-subnet templates by importing and interconnecting NFDs and/or other slice-subnet templates using network links (with or without slicing support)…an administrator may use the design studio provided by UI 106 to create end-to-end slice templates by importing and interconnecting domain-specific slice-subnet templates (with or without slicing support)).
As per claim 10, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: deploying the network slice (Kozlova: paragraph 0133; deploying, by the processing circuitry, a network slice in accordance with the NST).
With respect to claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Kozlova teaches an apparatus (Kozlova: paragraph 0065 and fig. 6; a server or other computing device 600), comprising: a processor (Kozlova: paragraph 0065 and fig. 6; one or more processor(s) 602); and a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor (Kozlova: paragraph 0067; storage device 608 is used to store program instructions for execution by processors 602).
Regarding claims 12-15, they are substantially similar to claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
With respect to claim 16, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Kozlova teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor (Kozlova: paragraph 0156; Computer-readable media may include non-transitory computer-readable storage media… Instructions embedded or encoded in a computer-readable medium may cause a programmable processor, or other processor, to perform the method).
Regarding claims 17-20, they are substantially similar to claims 2-5, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same arts and reasoning applying.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kozlova et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0276211), in view of Lau et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0058984), in view of Lee (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0232579), and further in view of Tiwari et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0352534).
As per claim 8, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising: performance indicators (See at least paragraph 0038 of Lee; performance indicator (KPI)).
However the modified Kozlova does not explicitly mention in response to the selection of the domain specific subnets, updating the GUI, the GUI comprising: a list of parameters of key performance indicators (KPIs) that are configured to be selected by a user, each parameter or KPI to be monitored upon deployment of the network slice.
However Tiwari teaches:
in response to the selection of the domain specific subnets, updating the GUI, the GUI comprising: a list of parameters of key performance indicators (KPIs) that are configured to be selected by a user, each parameter or KPI to be monitored upon deployment of the network slice (Tiwari: paragraph 0042; slice manager 205 may manage deployed network slices 210, and may provide QoS and performance information to a QoS parameter determination function 215 within the slice QoS manager…paragraph 0088; the performance information identifies at least one of: a key performance indicator associated with the network slice providing the service).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Tiwari with the teachings as in the modified Kozlova. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to monitor performance of the network slice in association with the QoS profile, and to determine, based on the performance, that a performance indicator for a QoS parameter of the network slice is outside a threshold range of a performance metric (Tiwari: Abstract).
As per claim 9, the modified Kozlova teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the GUI further comprising: a sixth user selection field configured to allow the user to select an automated healing policy for detected faults (Tiwari: paragraph 0038; The OSS/BSS may provide fault management functions that detect network faults, and when a network fault occurs for a network slice, the OSS/BSS may provide a notification of the detected network faults to the slice QoS manager. As another example, the slice QoS manager may determine slice modifications based on information provided by the UE…the slice QoS manager may determine the slice modification based on the notification in combination with other factors, such as QoS issues or resource issues).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
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 KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (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 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.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449