DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed January 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19, 25-30, 36, and 37 have been amended.
Claims 1-15, 34, and 35 are cancelled as previously indicated.
Claims 16-33, 36, and 37 are currently pending.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 16, 19-26, 28-30, 32, 33, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al. (hereinafter Jeong) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0369204 A1) in view of NORD et al. (hereinafter Nord) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0274464 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong teaches a network (figure 1) configured to perform network slicing, the network comprising: a plurality of UPF gateway instances (UPF N; figures 10 and 13), each UPF gateway instance configured to: serve one of the network slices ([0158]; [0159]; teaches UPF instance configured to serve network slices; figure 10);
receive information from a Session Management Function (SMF) relating to a packet data session belonging to the one of the network slices ([0159]; [0170]; [0174]; teaches receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice); and based on the information received from the SMF, signal to the UPF instance that the packet data session belongs to the one of the network slices ([0159]; [0170]; [0174]; [0175]; teaches signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice).
However, Jeong may not explicitly disclose a single user plane function (UPF) instance configured to serve a plurality of network slices and the plurality of UPF gateway instances that interface with the single UPF instance, and the UPF gateway instance configured to serve one of the plurality of network slices and a packet data session belonging to one of the plurality of network slices (although Jeong does teach more than one network slices; figure 2; [0138]).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Nord teaches and suggests a single user plane function (UPF) instance (UPF, 134, figure 2) configured to serve a plurality of network slices (network slices, figure 2) and the plurality of UPF gateway instances (UPF, 108a-c, figure 2) that interface with the single UPF instance, and the UPF gateway instance configured to serve one of the plurality of network slices and a packet data session belonging to one of the plurality of network slices ([0028]; [0029]; [0034]; [0039]; teaches a single UPF instance to serve a plurality of network slices and a plurality of UPFs interface with the single UPF instance and the plurality of UPFs serve one of the plurality of network slices and PDU sessions belonging to and associated with a respective network slice; figure 2).
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 incorporate a single UPF instance to serve a plurality of network slices and a plurality of UPFs interface with the single UPF instance and the plurality of UPFs serve one of the plurality of network slices and PDU sessions belonging to and associated with a respective network slice as taught by Nord with the method and system for receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice as disclosed by Jeong for the purpose of managing network slices serving a PDU session, as suggested by Nord.
Regarding claim 19, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the single UPF instance is configured to prioritize processing of packet data belonging to the one of the plurality of network slices over packet data belonging to another of the plurality of network slices ([0086]; [0105]; [0120]; teaches priority processing of PDU belonging to network slices).
Regarding claim 20, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the information received from the SMF does not signal that the packet data session belongs to the one of the network slices ([0174]; [0231]; teaches the information from the SMF is not signaled).
Regarding claim 21, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the UPF gateway instances are configured to receive the information from the SMF via an N4 interface ([0159]; figure 1; teaches communication information from the SMF to the UPF instance via an N4 interface).
Regarding claim 22, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the network is configured to cause a network address of an N4 reference point of the UPF gateway instance to be associated with the one of the network slices ([0159]; [0170]; teaches a network/IP address of the NF interface of the UPF associated with the network slices).
Regarding claim 23, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the network is configured to cause the association between the network address of the N4 reference point of the UPF gateway instance and the one of the network slices to be stored in a Network Function Repository Function (NRF) ([0159]; [0170]; [0231]; [0232]; teaches a network/IP address of the NF interface of the UPF associated with the network slices stored in NRF).
Regarding claim 24, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the UPF gateway instance is configured to request registration of the association between the network address of the N4 reference point of the UPF gateway instance and the one of the network slices ([0159]; [0170]; teaches association of a network/IP address of the NF interface of the UPF associated with the network slices).
Regarding claim 25, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the single UPF instance is configured with a network address to be used to communicate information with the UPF gateway instance, the network address of the single UPF instance being different from the network address of the N4 reference point of the UPF gateway instance ([0159]; [0170]; teaches a network/IP address of the NF interface of the UPF associated with the network slices).
Regarding claim 26, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the UPF gateway instance is configured to signal to the UPF instance that the packet data session belongs to the one of the network slices by signaling: a network slice identifier arranged to identify the one of the network slices; or a packet data session identifier arranged to identify the packet data session ([0109]; [0131]; [0169]; teaches an identifier of the network slice and a PDU session ID).
Regarding claim 28, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the UPF gateway instance is configured to provide the SMF with at least one network address to which packet data belonging to the packet data session is to be sent, and wherein the at least one network address to which packet data belonging to the packet data session is to be sent is for a reference point of the single UPF instance ([0169]; [0170]; teaches providing the SMF with network/IP address).
Regarding claim 29, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the reference point of the single UPF instance comprises an N3 reference point of the single UPF instance ([0179]; [0207]; teaches an N3 interface of the UPF instances).
Regarding claim 30, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the reference point of the single UPF instance comprises an N6 reference point of the single UPF instance ([0160]; teaches an N6 interface of the UPF instances).
Regarding claim 32, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein the UPF gateway instance is configured to serve only the one of the network slices ([0159]; [0161]; teaches the UPF instance is serving only one network slice).
Regarding claim 33, Jeong, as modified by Nord, further teaches wherein at least some of the network slices correspond to different traffic profiles ([0055]; [0246]; teaches the network slices corresponding to NF profile).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Jeong teaches a method a method for performing network slicing in a 5G network (figure 1) and a system (figure 8) for performing network slicing in a network (figure 1) comprising a plurality of UPF gateway instances (UPF N; figure 13), the system comprising: one or more processors (controller, figure 8); and a memory (memory, figure 8) storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
serving one of the network slices ([0158]; [0159]; teaches UPF instance configured to serve network slices);
receiving information from a Session Management Function (SMF) relating to a packet data session belonging to the one of network slices ([0159]; [0170]; [0174]; teaches receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice); and based on the information received from the SMF, signaling to the UPF instance that the packet data session belongs to the one of the network slices ([0159]; [0170]; [0174]; [0175]; teaches signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice).
However, Jeong may not explicitly disclose a single user plane function (UPF) instance configured to serve a plurality of network slices and the plurality of UPF gateway instances that interface with the single UPF instance, and the UPF gateway instance configured to serve one of the plurality of network slices and a packet data session belonging to one of the plurality of network slices (although Jeong does teach more than one network slices; figure 2; [0138]).
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Nord teaches and suggests a single user plane function (UPF) instance (UPF, 134, figure 2) configured to serve a plurality of network slices (network slices, figure 2) and the plurality of UPF gateway instances (UPF, 108a-c, figure 2) that interface with the single UPF instance, and the UPF gateway instance configured to serve one of the plurality of network slices and a packet data session belonging to one of the plurality of network slices ([0028]; [0029]; [0034]; [0039]; teaches a single UPF instance to serve a plurality of network slices and a plurality of UPFs interface with the single UPF instance and the plurality of UPFs serve one of the plurality of network slices and PDU sessions belonging to and associated with a respective network slice; figure 2).
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 incorporate a single UPF instance to serve a plurality of network slices and a plurality of UPFs interface with the single UPF instance and the plurality of UPFs serve one of the plurality of network slices and PDU sessions belonging to and associated with a respective network slice as taught by Nord with the method and system for receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice as disclosed by Jeong for the purpose of managing network slices serving a PDU session, as suggested by Nord.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al. (hereinafter Jeong) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0369204 A1) in view of NORD et al. (hereinafter Nord) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0274464 A1), and further in view of Zong et al. (hereinafter Zong) (U.S. Patent # 11,558,346 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Jeong, as modified by Nord, discloses receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the UPF instance has access to a shared pool of processors, the shared pool of processors being shared across at least some of the plurality of network slices.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zong suggests wherein the UPF instance has access to a shared pool of processors, the shared pool of processors being shared across at least some of the plurality of network slices (column 16, lines 53-57; teaches the network device having access to a plurality of processors).
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 incorporate the network device having access to a plurality of processors as taught by Zong with the method and system for receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice as disclosed by Jeong, as modified by Nord, for the purpose of providing efficient access to processors to perform packet processing.
Regarding claim 18, Jeong, as modified by Nord, discloses receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the UPF instance is configured to process packet data belonging to the one of the network slices using multiple processors in the shared pool of processors.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Zong suggests wherein the UPF instance is configured to process packet data belonging to the one of the network slices using multiple processors in the shared pool of processors (column 16, lines 53-57; teaches the network device having access to a plurality of processors).
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 incorporate the network device having access to a plurality of processors as taught by Zong with the method and system for receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice as disclosed by Jeong, as modified by Nord and Zong, for the purpose of providing efficient access to processors to perform packet processing.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JEONG et al. (hereinafter Jeong) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0369204 A1) in view of NORD et al. (hereinafter Nord) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0274464 A1), and further in view of DAO et al. (hereinafter Dao) (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2022/0386228 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Jeong, as modified by Nord, discloses receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the network is configured such that the UPF gateway instance receives control-plane traffic relating to the packet data session and does not receive user-plane traffic belonging to the packet data session.
Nonetheless, in the same field of endeavor, Dao suggests wherein the network is configured such that the UPF gateway instance receives control-plane traffic relating to the packet data session and does not receive user-plane traffic belonging to the packet data session ([0054]; [0055]; teaches configuration such that UPF receives control plane messages related to PDU sessions).
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 incorporate the network device having access to a plurality of processors as taught by Dao with the method and system for receiving information from a SMF related to PDU session belonging to a network slice and signaling to the UPF instance a PDU session belonging to a network slice as disclosed by Jeong, as modified by Nord, for the purpose of establishing PDU sessions, as suggested by Dao.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 21, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-33, 36, and 37 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of NORD et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2021/0274464 A1).
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 SUK JIN KANG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1771. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chirag Shah can be reached on (571) 272-3144. 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.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Suk Jin Kang/
Examiner, Art Unit 2477
May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights