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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 22, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 and 15-26 are pending in the application. Applicant has submitted amendments to the claims along with other remarks. Claims 1-5 and 15-26 are still rejected by prior art references, refer to the following rejection for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pp 5-7 of the response, filed January 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 15-26 under § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration for the amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new reference, please see the rejection for details.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0107250 (hereafter “So”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0267554 (hereinafter “Faccin”)
Regarding claim 1, So teaches: A user equipment, UE, configured with a first identifier corresponding to a first Subscription Permanent Identifier, SUPI, or Global Public Subscriber Identifier, GPSI for the UE and a second identifier corresponding to a second SUPI or GPSI for the UE ([0052] The associated slicing group information is also included for each S-NSSAI Identifier (see FIG. 3) in the Configured NSSAI (see 3GPP TS 23.501 for proper definition) as well as in the associated mapping, if applicable, [0124] cites TS 23.502, Fig. 4.2.2.2.2-1, p. 24/364 “The GPSI is provided to the AMF in the Access and Mobility Subscription data from the UDM if the GPSI is available in the UE subscription data.”), the UE comprising processing circuitry ([0165]) configured to: determine that resources and data associated with the first identifier require end-to-end isolation from the resources and data associated with the second identifier ([0055] 4) The support for Coexistent Slicing Group feature should be end-to-end); cause transmission of a registration message to a network node comprising the first identifier, the registration message for a first network slice ([0053] 2) If the UE provides the Requested NSSAI during the UE registration); and if the UE has existing connections associated with the second identifier, release the existing connections associated with the second identifier to provide end-to-end isolation of the resources and data when the first identifier is transmitted in the registration message ([0057] then the UE will re-register with the new Requested NSSAI that includes the S-NSSAIs from the Configured NSSAI corresponding to the target service, and any existing PDU session, if any, will be released according to clause 5.15.5.2.2 in 3GPP TS 23.501 [1] before the UE is registered with the new set of S-NSSAI(s) in the new Coexistent Slicing Group).
So does not explicitly teach: in response to the causing transmission of the registration message, releasing, by the UE, any existing connections associated with the second identifier for a second network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Faccin teaches: in response to the causing transmission of the registration message, releasing, by the UE, any existing connections associated with the second identifier for a second network slice ([0161]).
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 modify So to include the feature of releasing all PDUs associated with the first NSSAI and a combination of So with Faccin renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., releasing all PDUs associated with the first NSSAI).
Regarding claim 2, So teaches: wherein the first identifier and the second identifier correspond to a first and a second slice identifier ([0052] The associated slicing group information is also included for each S-NSSAI Identifier (see FIG. 3) in the Configured NSSAI (see 3GPP TS 23.501 for proper definition) as well as in the associated mapping, if applicable.).
Regarding claim 3, So teaches: wherein the first identifier and the second identifier correspond to a first and a second vertical identifier ([0052] The associated slicing group information is also included for each S-NSSAI Identifier (see FIG. 3) in the Configured NSSAI.
Regarding claim 15, So teaches: A method implemented in a network node ([0146] first network device; [0153] network device), the method comprising: sending a first associated identifier and a second associated identifier to a user equipment ([0146] receiving (604), by the wireless terminal, a message carrying information about one or more of an allowed network slice instance assistance information (NSSAI) and a configured NSSAI, [0155] In some embodiments of the method 700, the registration request may identify one or more coexistent slice groups for an S-NSSAI based on a slice descriptor field, such as the SD field depicted in FIG. 3, of an identifier of the S-NSSAI.), UE, the first associated identifier being associated with information identifying a first set of network slices that requires isolation ([0146] one or more of an allowed network slice instance assistance information (NSSAI) and the second associated identifier being associated with information identifying a second set of network slices that requires isolation ([0146] one or more of an allowed network slice instance assistance information (NSSAI); receiving a registration message comprising the first associated identifier from the UE ([0057] then the UE will re-register with the new Requested NSSAI); and as a result of the received registration message, terminating all protocol data unit, PDU, sessions associated with the second associated identifier to provide the required isolation of the first set of network slices from at least the second set of network slices when the first associated identifier is comprised in the registration message ([0057] and any existing PDU session, if any, will be released according to clause 5.15.5.2.2 in 3GPP TS 23.501 [1] before the UE is registered with the new set of S-NSSAI(s) in the new Coexistent Slicing Group).
So does not explicitly teach: in response to receiving the registration message, terminating all PDU sessions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Faccin teaches: in response to receiving the registration message, terminating all PDU sessions ([0161]).
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 modify So to include the feature of releasing all PDUs associated with the first NSSAI and a combination of So with Faccin renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., releasing all PDUs associated with the first NSSAI).
Regarding claim 16, So teaches: wherein the information identifying the first set of network slices comprises a first set of network slice selection assistance information, NSSAI ([0146] one or more of an allowed network slice instance assistance information (NSSAI); and the information identifying the second set of network slices comprises a second set of NSSAI ([0146] one or more of an allowed network slice instance assistance information (NSSAI).
Regarding claim 17, So teaches: wherein sending the first and second associated identifiers in one of a registration accept message and a UE configuration update message ([0057] then the UE will re-register with the new Requested NSSAI that includes the S-NSSAIs from the Configured NSSAI corresponding to the target service, and any existing PDU session, if any, will be released according to clause 5.15.5.2.2 in 3GPP TS 23.501 [1] before the UE is registered with the new set of S-NSSAI(s) in the new Coexistent Slicing Group.; [0032] No impact to other existing Release 15 basic system procedures such as the Mobility Management procedure, UE Configuration Update procedures, etc.; See also, TS 23.502 4.2.4.1).
Regarding claim 18, So teaches: further comprising: as a result of the received the registration message comprising the first associated identifier, performing a slice switching registration using the first associated identifier ([0057] then the UE will re-register with the new Requested NSSAI that includes the S-NSSAIs from the Configured NSSAI corresponding to the target service).
Regarding claim 19, So teaches: further comprising: as a result of the slice switching registration, sending a second globally unique temporary identifier, 5G-GUTI, to the UE , the second 5G-GUTI overwriting a current 5G-GUTI at the UE ([0032] No impact to other existing Release 15 basic system procedures such as the Mobility Management procedure, UE Configuration Update procedures, etc.; TS 23.502 4.2.4.2, Figure 4.2.4.2-1: step 1).
Regarding claim 20, So teaches: wherein the slice switching registration comprises switching the UE from the second set of network slices to the first set of network slices that is associated with the first associated identifier comprised in the registration message ([0057] then the UE will re-register with the new Requested NSSAI that includes the S-NSSAIs from the Configured NSSAI corresponding to the target service; [0154] With respect to methods and apparatuses described in the present document, the coexistent slice grouping technique groups network slices in groups in which intra-group network slices are capable of serving the wireless terminal simultaneously and inter-group network slices are disallowed from serving the wireless terminal simultaneously. [0004] The coexistent slice grouping technique groups network slices in groups in which intra-group network slices are capable of serving the wireless terminal simultaneously and inter-group network slices are disallowed from serving the wireless terminal simultaneously.).
Regarding claim 21, So teaches: wherein the first associated identifier in the registration message implicitly indicates to tear down all the PDU sessions associated with the second associated identifier ([0057]) any existing PDU session, if any, will be released according to clause 5.15.5.2.2 in 3GPP TS 23.501 [1] before the UE is registered with the new set of S-NSSAI(s) in the new Coexistent Slicing Group).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Non-patent Literature entitled, “Constrained Network Slicing Games: Achieving service guarantees and network efficiency” (hereinafter “Zheng”)
Regarding claim 5, So does not teach: wherein the resources associated with the first identifier correspond to at least one of a first memory space, a first processing resource and a first network resource and the resources associated with the second identifier correspond to at least one of a second memory space, a second processing resource and a second network resource, the resources associated with the first identifier being isolated from the resources associated with the second identifier.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zheng teaches: wherein the resources associated with the first identifier correspond to at least one of a first memory space, a first processing resource and a first network resource and the resources associated with the second identifier correspond to at least one of a second memory space, a second processing resource and a second network resource, the resources associated with the first identifier being isolated from the resources associated with the second identifier (p. 1/8 “One of the key components underlying network slicing is the underlying framework for resource allocation: we need to decide how to assign the underlying infrastructure resources to each slice at each point in time. When taking such decisions, two major objectives are pursued: (i) meeting the customers’ needs specified by slice-based Service Level Agreements (SLAs), and (ii) realizing efficient infrastructure sharing by maximizing the overall level of satisfaction across all slices”; p. 2/8 “B may denote a set of base stations as well as any other sharable resource type, e.g., servers providing compute resources.”).
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 modify So to include the feature of resource allocation per slice and a combination of So with Zheng renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., provide slice based resource allocation).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Faccin and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0048066 (hereinafter “Lei”)
Regarding claim 23, the combination of So and Faccin does not teach: sending security information and an extensible authentication protocol identity, EAP-ID, to the UE , the GPSI that is associated with the first network slice being a key for the UE to identify the security information and the EAP-ID to use in a network slice-specific authentication and authorization, NSSAA, procedure for the first network slice.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lei teaches: sending security information and an extensible authentication protocol identity, EAP-ID, to the UE , the GPSI that is associated with the first network slice being a key for the UE to identify the security information and the EAP-ID to use in a network slice-specific authentication and authorization, NSSAA, procedure for the first network slice ([0009], [0109], [0112-113], [0137] 210: The AAA-S sends a second response message to the AMF, where the second response message carries the EAP authentication result, the S-NSSAI, and the GPSI (or the SUPI). Accordingly, the AMF receives the second response message. [0138] The S-NSSAI and the GPSI (or the SUPI) may indicate that the EAP authentication result is an authentication result of the UE for the S-NSSAI. [0139] 211: The AMF sends a NAS message to the UE, where the NAS message carries the EAP authentication result. Accordingly, the UE receives the NAS message. Alternatively, the EAP authentication result may be carried in another type of (non-NAS) message. A carrying message is not limited in this application. [0147], [0161], [0217], [0219], [0228]).
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 modify So to include the feature of an EAP-ID and using the GPSI as a key for the UE and the combination of So and Faccin with Lei renders the claim prima facie obvious within the described scope of the prior art and any indicated differences within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., telecommunications engineer) according to a combination of known prior art elements with known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A) (e.g., [0009] In this way, slice authentication efficiency is improved. In addition, the slice authentication initiated by the different PLMNs for the same piece of S-NSSAI is distinguished from each other, so that keys generated by the different PLMNs (or AMFs) may be further distinguished from each other, thereby avoiding a case in which the authentication server incorrectly updates a key.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-patent literature entitled, “Resource Allocation for Network Slices in 5G with Network Resource Pricing” (Wang et al.)
Non-patent literature entitled, “End-to-End Network Slicing Security across Standards Organizations” (Dhanasekaran et al.)
Non-patent literature entitled, “3GPP TS 23.502v16.4.0”
U.S. Publication No. 2019/0141606 (Qiao) related to location based coexistence rules for network slices
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN BARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0201. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am EST to 5:00pm EST.
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, Jinsong HU can be reached at (571) 272-3965. 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.
/JAB/ Examiner, Art Unit 2643
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643