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 office action is in response to the claims received on 6/4/2026.
Communications via email (MPEP 502.03)
In order to advance prosecution of the instant application, the Applicants are invited to file a form PTO/SB/439, and to include, in their response, the Applicants’ contact telephone number and e-mail address:
http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf
Examiner's Recommendations
The following are suggestions for the Applicants to overcome the rejections in the current office action; however, an additional search would be required in order to determine allowability.
1. (Amended) A method to serve a wireless user device with network slices, the method comprising:
receiving, by a network slice broker, a slice request from the wireless user device;
selecting, by the network slice broker, network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request;
transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response that indicates the network slices selected in response to the slice request;
initiating, by the NSSFs, control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device based on the selected network slices; and
transferring, by the user planes, user data to the wireless user device over the user-planes in response to signaling from the control-planes, wherein the network slices, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices.
8. (Amended) A method to serve a wireless user device with multiple network slices, the method comprising:
receiving, by a network slice broker, a slice request from the wireless user device;
selecting, by the network slice broker, network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request;
transferring, by the network slice broker, over the user planes, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the network slices selected in response to the slice request;
initiating, by the NSSFs, control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device based on the network slices; and
transferring, by the user-planes, user data to the wireless user device in response to signaling from the control-planes, wherein the network slices, the network slice broker, the NSSFs, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices.
15. (Amended) A wireless communication system to serve a wireless user device with multiple network slices, the wireless communication system comprising:
a network slice broker configured to:
receive a slice request from the wireless user device;
select network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request; and
transfer, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), over the user planes, a slice response indicating the network slices selected in response to the slice request;
initiate, by the NSSFs, control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device based on the network slices; and
transfer, by the user planes, user data to the wireless user device in response to signaling from the control-planes, wherein the network slices, the network slice broker, the NSSFs, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Stammers et al (publication number 20190254083), hereinafter Stammers, teaches slice-specific network functions in par. 30-32 in reference to Fig. 1A, and in par. 33-36 in reference to Fig. 1B.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The slice-specific network functions are represented by numeral 106. Each slice instance corresponds to an instance of a network function. Therefore:
Network slice instance 1 is the same as "network slice 1" and is formed by slice-specific network functions CP instance 1, UP instance 1, NF instance 1, SMF instance 1, UPF instance 1.
Network slice instance 2 is the same as "network slice 2" and is formed by slice-specific network functions CP instance 2, UP instance 2, NF instance 2, SMF instance 2, UPF instance 2, and so on...
Network slice instance n is the same as "network slice n" and is formed by slice-specific network functions CP instance n, UP instance n, NF instance n, SMF instance n, UPF instance n.
PNG
media_image2.png
619
897
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Fig. 3, Stammers teaches a method of selecting network slice, session management and user plane functions for use in a session of a UE.
PNG
media_image3.png
325
843
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stammers teaches the NSSFs initiating control-planes (Stammers' steps 5, 6 of Fig. 3, par. 50-51: the AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request; steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request; par. 34 explains that the SMF is part of the control plane. The SMF 120a receiving the request and requesting the UPF to establish a session meets claimed "the NSSF initiating control-planes") and user-planes for the wireless user device (Stammers' user plane is initiated based on the request from SMF 120A in par. 51 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request, so that the selected UPF 122a will be used to carry traffic of the session for UE 102; UPF 122a belongs to the selected slice instance 1 in Fig. 1b) based on the network slices ("based on the selected network slices" is met because Stammers' step 7 in Fig. 3 occurs after the selection step 4).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, Stammers falls short of addressing whether the control planes or user planes could be deployed, or not, in different Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs), or whether they could be deployed in a network which isn't a PLMN.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, Stammers falls short of addressing whether the control planes or user planes could be deployed, or not, in different Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs), or whether they could be deployed in a network which isn't a PLMN.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, Stammers teaches in par. 36 that the UE provides network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) during an initial attach procedure; however, Stammers falls short of the UE providing any type of capability information.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Claim Interpretation
Plain Meaning (MPEP 2111.01): MPEP 2111.01 states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case:
“For”: The independent claims recite the term "for", e.g., "receiving a slice request for the wireless user device"; "selecting network slices for the wireless user device". However, the claim doesn't explain why or how the request is "for" the user device. The specification recites the term “for” several times, for example on [23], [28] without redefining this term; therefore, it has its original meaning. In order to determine the meaning of claimed “for”, the Examiner consulted the Collins Dictionary: "For" is the same as "intended to belong to, or be used in connection with". Collins Dictionary definition of "for" printed on 6/8/2026. Retrieved from Internet:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/for
“System”: Regarding independent claim 15, this is a machine claim which recites the term "system" in the preamble. The specification recites the term “system” several times, for example on par. 5, 22, without redefining this term; therefore, it has its original meaning. In order to determine the meaning of claimed “system”, the Examiner consulted the Collins Dictionary: A system is a set of devices powered by electricity, for example a computer or an alarm. The Collins Dictionary meaning of “system”, printed on 9/16/2024. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/system>. Therefore, claimed “system” excludes transitory embodiments, and doesn’t raise eligibility issues under 35 USC 101.
“Initiating”: The independent claims recite the term "initiating". The specification recites the term “initiating” several times, for example on par. 22-23, without redefining this term; therefore, it has its original meaning. In order to determine the meaning of claimed “initiating”, the Examiner consulted the Merriam-Webster Thesaurus: Initiating is the same as setting up, creating, or establishing. Merriam-Webster Thesaurus synonyms of “initiating”, printed on 3/2/2026. Retrieved from Internet: <https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/initiating>.
"Network Slice Broker", "Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSF)": claims 7-20 recite a "Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs)"; claims 8-20 recite a "Network Slice Broker". Claim 1 does not recite either of these terms. The specification mentions these terms, e.g. [0003] explains features of NSSF and [0006] explains features of a network slice broker; however, the specification does not provide a definition. Therefore, these terms are met by any network function which performs the same operation as the claim requires.
"The network slices, the network slice broker, the NSSFs, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices": Claimed "stored in one or more memory devices", which includes a case where there could be one single memory device, indicates that these functions (network slice broker, the NSSFs, the control-planes, and the user-planes) may all be embodied by one single device, or else by multiple memory devices. Therefore, all claimed steps may be performed either within one single device or by multiple devices.
Claim 1, a method claim, is the broadest independent claim and is interpreted as follows:
1. (PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED) A method to serve a wireless user device with network slices, the method comprising:
receiving a slice request for (claimed "for" means "in connection with") the wireless user device (this limitation doesn't explain 1. Why or how the request is "for" the user device; or 2. Which type of connection would be required, between the slice request and the wireless device. Therefore, any relationship between a request and a wireless device would meet this connection or the claimed "for");
selecting network slices for the wireless user device (this limitation doesn't explain which type of connection would be required, between the "selecting" and the wireless device. Therefore, any relationship between a request and a wireless device would meet this connection or the claimed "for") in response to the slice request;
transferring a slice response that indicates the selected network slices;
initiating (claimed "initiating" means setting up, creating, or establishing) control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device (any relationship or connection between the "initiating" and the wireless device would meet this limitation) based on the selected network slices; and
transferring user data for the wireless user device (any relationship or connection between the "transferring" and the wireless device would meet this limitation) over the user-planes under control of the control-planes, wherein the network slices, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices.
Claim 8 is interpreted as follows:
8. (PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED) A method to serve a wireless user device with multiple network slices, the method comprising:
receiving, by a network slice broker, a slice request for the wireless user device (claimed "network slice broker" is met by any network function which performs the same operation as the claim requires);
selecting, by the network slice broker, network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request;
transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs, claimed "NSSF" is met by any network function which performs the same operation as the claim requires), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device….
There is no new ground of rejection
The instant office action doesn't add any new grounds of rejection. According to MPEP 706.07(a), guidance in determining what constitutes a new ground of rejection is best provided by MPEP § 1207.03(a); and according to MPEP § 1207.03(a):
I. Factual situations that constitute a new ground of rejection are as follows:
1. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 102 to 35 U.S.C. 103.
2. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, based on a different teaching.
3. Citing new calculations in support of overlapping ranges.
4. Citing new structure in support of structural obviousness.
5. Pointing to a different portion of the claim to maintain a "new matter" rejection.
II. Factual situations that do not constitute a new ground of rejection are as follows:
1. Citing a different portion of a reference to elaborate upon that which has been cited previously.
2. Changing the statutory basis of rejection from 35 U.S.C. 103 to 35 U.S.C. 102, but relying on the same teachings.
3. Relying on fewer than all references in support of a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, but relying on the same teachings.
4. Changing the order of references in the statement of rejection, but relying on the same teachings of those references.
5. Considering, in order to respond to applicant’s arguments, other portions of a reference submitted by the applicant.
Based on the factual situations listed in MPEP 1207.03(a), the instant office action doesn't add any new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with regards to claims and rejection analysis have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Applicants argue, on page 4, 3rd par., that Applicant notes that prior Office Actions indicated a broader set of dependent claims as allowable. The present Office Action now identifies only claims 4-6, 11-13, and 18-20 as allowable if rewritten in independent form, but does not clearly explain why claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16, and 17 are no longer viewed as allowable. Applicant submits that the present record does not support that change in position.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because The Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In this case, the office action explains in the "Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103" section, why claims 1, 7-8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammers et al (publication number 20190254083), hereinafter Stammers, and further in view of Vrzic (publication number 2017/0142591), hereinafter Vrzic, and also explains why claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammers, in view of Vrzic, and further in view of Hu et al (publication number 2020/0204976), hereinafter Hu.
Argument 2: Applicants argue, on page 6, last par., until page 7, 2nd par., that Applicant traverses the rejection as follows: Claim 1 recites: • receiving a slice request for the wireless user device; • selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request; • transferring a slice response that indicates the selected network slices; • initiating control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device based on the selected network slices; and • transferring user data for the wireless user device over the user-planes under control of the control-planes, wherein the network slices, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices. The cited combination does not teach or reasonably suggest selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request as recited by claim 1. The Office Action does not identify any type of brokered, multi-slice coordination in the cited art. Stammers generally relates to selecting session management and user plane functions for a session of a UE (Stammers; Abstract). At best, Stammers discusses an AMF selecting an SMF instance and a UPF instance for a session, sending a create session request to the selected SMF, and providing an identity or indication of the selected UPF to the selected SMF (Id; 46-51). Stammers explains that AMF selects an SMF instance based on a first set of data items and selects a UPF instance based on a second set of data items, then provides the selected UPF identity to the selected SMF (Id, [0024]-[0029], [0044]-[0052]).
Examiner’s response to Argument 2: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "any type of brokered, multi-slice coordination") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claims don't require the argued "any type of brokered, multi-slice coordination". Stammers teaches claimed selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request (Stammers par. 46-49 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 3 and 4: AMF 112 selects SMF and UPF instances 120a, 122a, i.e., the AMF selects a network slice instance represented as slice 1 in Fig. 1b; the AMF also obtains an identity of the selected SMF instance).
Argument 3: Applicants argue, on page 7, 3rd par., that selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to a slice request is different from Stammers' AMF selecting an SMF instance and a UPF instance for a session. For example, Stammers fails to discuss a network slice broker that selects multiple network slices for the wireless user device and then transferring a slice response to NSSFs corresponding to those selected slices. Moreover, Stammers fails to disclose downstream multi-function coordination like a broker sending slice information to multiple NSSFs that then distribute slice information to AMF, PCF, and UPF entities across different selected slices. The Office Action's rationale effectively reduces the claimed "network slices" limitation to Stammers' selection of an SMF and a UPF for a session, which claim 1 does not even recite. As such, Stammers does not teach or reasonably suggest selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request as recited by claim 1.
Examiner’s response to Argument 3: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "a network slice broker that selects multiple network slices for the wireless user device and then transferring a slice response to NSSFs corresponding to those selected slices" or "downstream multi-function coordination like a broker sending slice information to multiple NSSFs that then distribute slice information to AMF, PCF, and UPF entities across different selected slices") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claims do not require the argued features of "a network slice broker that selects multiple network slices for the wireless user device and then transferring a slice response to NSSFs corresponding to those selected slices" or "downstream multi-function coordination like a broker sending slice information to multiple NSSFs that then distribute slice information to AMF, PCF, and UPF entities across different selected slices". Stammers teaches claimed selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request (Stammers par. 46-49 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 3 and 4: AMF 112 selects SMF and UPF instances 120a, 122a, i.e., the AMF selects a network slice instance represented as slice 1 in Fig. 1b; the AMF also obtains an identity of the selected SMF instance); transferring a slice response that indicates the selected network slices (Stammers par. 50 in reference to Fig. 3 step 5: Using the identity of the selected SMF instance 120a, AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request. Step 6: AMF 112 also provides the identity or indication of the selected UPF instance 122a to SMF 120a – step 6 meets claimed indication of the selected network slices).
Argument 4: Applicants argue, on page 7, last par., that Vrzic does not alleviate this deficiency of Stammers. Vrzic discusses slice association/selection and various configurations in which slices may share some control-plane functions or use isolated control-plane and user-plane functions (Vrzic, [0033]-[0041], [0077]-[0094]). However, Vrzic still does not teach or reasonably suggest selecting multiple network slices for the wireless user device and transferring a slice response for those slices. Instead, Vrzic's cited teaching is that a Slice Selection Function (SSF) selects a slice and indicates the selected slice to an Access Node (AN), which then establishes connections (Vrzic, [0038]-[0041], [0085]-[0093]). As such, Vrzic does not alleviate the deficiencies of Stammers. The cited combination therefore does not teach or reasonably suggest selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request as recited by amended claim 1.
Examiner’s response to Argument 4: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "selecting multiple network slices for the wireless user device and transferring a slice response for those slices") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claims don't require the argued "selecting multiple network slices for the wireless user device and transferring a slice response for those slices". Regarding the reference Vrzic, Vrzic teaches claimed initiating control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device (Vrzic par. 108: UE 1202 sends an Attach Request 1210 to an Access Node (AN) 805) based on the selected network slices (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 undertakes a slice selection process 1214 in accordance with information received from the AN 805 in the Attach Request 1212; the SSF then sends an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805 in 1216. Par. 112: AN 805 sets up the CP connection 1220 and the UP connection 1222. Vrzic claims 36, 38: "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a control plane connection"; "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a user plane connection").
Argument 5: Applicants argue, on page 8, 2nd - 3rd par., that Claim 8 recites: • receiving, by a network slice broker, a slice request for the wireless user device; • selecting, by the network slice broker, network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request; • transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device; • initiating, by the NSSFs, control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device based on the network slices; and • transferring, by the user-planes, user data for the wireless user device in response to signaling from the control-planes, wherein the network slices, the network slice broker, the NSSFs, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices. The cited combination does not teach or reasonably suggest transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device as recited by claim 8. The Office Action asserts that Stammers' AMF 112 corresponds to the claimed network slice broker and that Stammers' SMF 120a corresponds to the claimed NSSFs (Office Action, pg. 24). As demonstrated above, the cited portions of Stammers discuss an AMF sending a create session request to a selected SMF and providing an identity or indication of a selected UPF to the selected SMF. (Stammers, [0050]-[0051]). Stammers discusses AMF-to-SMF session signaling, not a network slice broker transferring a slice response to NSSFs. As such, Stammers does not teach or reasonably suggest transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device as recited by claim 8.
Examiner’s response to Argument 5: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, claims 7-20 recite a "Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs)"; claims 8-20 recite a "Network Slice Broker". Claim 1 does not recite these terms. The specification mentions these terms, e.g. [0003] explains features of NSSF and [0006] explains features of a network slice broker; however, the specification does not provide a definition. Therefore, these terms are met by prior art which performs their claimed functions.
Argument 6: Applicants argue, on page 8, last par. until page 9, 2nd par., that Vrzic does not alleviate this deficiency of Stammers. The Office Action cites paragraph 110 of Vrzic for allegedly teaching this limitation (Office Action, pgs. 23-24, 26-29). However, paragraph 110 of Vrzic only discusses an SSF selecting a network slice and transmitting an indication of the selected slice to an AN (Vrzic, [0085]-[0093]). That is different than a network slice broker transferring a slice response to NSSFs. Wireless communication networks are hugely complex systems. The operations of a particular core network function or other network element like an access node should not be attributed to another core network function without some form of explicit motivation. As such, Vrzic does not alleviate this deficiency of Stammers. The cited combination therefore does not teach or reasonably suggest transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device as recited by claim 8.
Examiner’s response to Argument 6: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because in response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "Wireless communication networks are hugely complex systems. The operations of a particular core network function or other network element like an access node should not be attributed to another core network function without some form of explicit motivation") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the claims don't require the argued "Wireless communication networks are hugely complex systems. The operations of a particular core network function or other network element like an access node should not be attributed to another core network function without some form of explicit motivation". Claims 7-20 recite a "Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs)"; claims 8-20 recite a "Network Slice Broker". Claim 1 does not recite these terms. The specification mentions these terms, e.g. [0003] explains features of NSSF and [0006] explains features of a network slice broker; however, the specification does not provide a definition. Therefore, these terms are met by prior art which performs their claimed functions.
Eligibility analysis under 35 USC 101
Please refer to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes in MPEP 2106 and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter, the “2019 PEG”:
PNG
media_image4.png
711
1293
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Step 1: See MPEP 2106.03: 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. Claims 1-20 include claims directed to a process, and claims directed to a machine, which are statutory categories. Regarding claims 15-20, these claims are directed to a system, which excludes transitory embodiments. Therefore, the answer in step 1 is YES.
Step 2A: MPEP 2106 subclause II. “ELIGIBILITY STEP 2A: WHETHER A CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION” explains that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A prong 1: The 2019 PEG explains that Step 2A prong 1 procedure for determining whether a claim “recites” an abstract idea is: identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, which are: Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
In this case, claim 1 is directed to a method for initiating control-planes and user-planes for a wireless user device, based on network slices requested by a user, as depicted by Fig. 8 of the drawings and supported by par. 34-37 of the specification, and which doesn’t fall into any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Therefore, the answer to Step 2A prong 1 is “no”, and claim 1 would be eligible under 35 USC 101. The remaining independent claims, as well as the dependent claims, incorporate all limitations of independent claim 1 and are therefore eligible for the same reasons.
PNG
media_image5.png
730
1012
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Double Patenting
Regarding application number 17/066,775, now patent number 11,444,683, the double patenting rejection has been overcome because a terminal disclaimer was received.
Regarding application number 17/160,715, now patent number 11,395,111, it has the same inventive entity as the instant application; however, a double patenting rejection does not need to be applied because its claims fall short of selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request; transferring a slice response that indicates the selected network slices.
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.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 7-8, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammers et al (publication number 20190254083), hereinafter Stammers, and further in view of Vrzic (publication number 2017/0142591), hereinafter Vrzic.
Stammers teaches slice-specific network functions in Fig.1A, 1B; Stammers defines the following acronyms used on par. 25-36 in reference to Fig. 1A, 1B:
user equipment (UE);
control plane (CP);
user plane (UP);
user plane function (UPF);
network function (NF);
access and mobility management function (AMF);
session management function (SMF);
network slice selection function (NSSF);
network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI);
packet data unit (PDU);
policy control function (PCF);
authentication server function (AUSF);
unified data management (UDM)
PNG
media_image1.png
398
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
619
897
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stammers teaches slice-specific network functions in par. 30-32 in reference to Fig. 1A, and in par. 33-36 in reference to Fig. 1B. The slice-specific network functions are represented by numeral 106. Each slice instance corresponds to an instance of a network function. Therefore:
Network slice instance 1 is the same as "network slice 1" and is formed by slice-specific network functions CP instance 1, UP instance 1, NF instance 1, SMF instance 1, UPF instance 1.
Network slice instance 2 is the same as "network slice 2" and is formed by slice-specific network functions CP instance 2, UP instance 2, NF instance 2, SMF instance 2, UPF instance 2, and so on...
Network slice instance n is the same as "network slice n" and is formed by slice-specific network functions CP instance n, UP instance n, NF instance n, SMF instance n, UPF instance n.
Stammers par. 39-41, 46-51 explain that each instance of SMF, UPF corresponds to an "identity". Par. 39, 50: When AMF 112 selects an SMF instance for the session, AMF 112 obtains an identity of the selected SMF. Par. 41, 51: When SMF 120a selects a UPF instance for the session, SMF 120a obtains an identity of the selected UPF instance 122a. Stammers' Par. 34 explains which functions comprise the user plane, and which functions comprise the control plane:
The user plane is comprised by the UPF.
The control plane is comprised by:
AMF
SMF
PCF
AUSF
UDM
Regarding claim 1, Stammers teaches a method to serve a wireless user device (Stammers Fig. 4 represents a method; Fig. 3 represents a network performing the method and including a UE) with network slices (Stammers teaches slice-specific network functions in par. 30-32 in reference to Fig. 1A, and in par. 33-36 in reference to Fig. 1B), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
325
843
media_image3.png
Greyscale
receiving a slice request for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 36: The network deploys a network slice based on NSSAI provided by UE 102. Par. 43: Fig. 3 is a method of selecting network slice, session management and user plane functions for use in a session of a UE. Par. 44: In step 1, UE 101 sends to AMF 112, a session establishment request);
selecting network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request (Stammers par. 46-49 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 3 and 4: AMF 112 selects SMF and UPF instances 120a, 122a, i.e., the AMF selects a network slice instance represented as slice 1 in Fig. 1b; the AMF also obtains an identity of the selected SMF instance);
transferring a slice response that indicates the selected network slices (Stammers par. 50 in reference to Fig. 3 step 5: Using the identity of the selected SMF instance 120a, AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request. Step 6: AMF 112 also provides the identity or indication of the selected UPF instance 122a to SMF 120a – step 6 meets claimed indication of the selected network slices);
initiating control-planes (Stammers' control plane is initiated in step 5 of Fig. 3, par. 50, when the AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request; par. 34 explains that the SMF is part of the control plane; therefore, the control plane is initiated) and user-planes (Stammers' user plane is initiated in par. 51 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request, so that the selected UPF 122a will be used to carry traffic of the session for UE 102; UPF 122a belongs to the selected slice instance 1 in Fig. 1b) for the wireless user device based on the selected network slices ("based on the selected network slices" is met because Stammers' step 7 in Fig. 3 occurs after the selection step 4); and
transferring user data for the wireless user device over the user-planes (Stammers par. 41 in reference to Fig. 2: the selected UPF carries traffic of the session for the UE) under control of the control-planes (Stammers par. 41 in reference to Fig. 2: the SMF sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request; the SMF is part of the control plane, and therefore meets claimed "under control of the control-planes"), wherein the network slices, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices (Stammers par. 125: "FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a server, network device or equipment 1600 which may be used in some implementations of the present disclosure." "The one or more processors 1602 of the network equipment are configured to operate in accordance with program instructions 1608 stored in memory 1604, in order to perform basic functions as well as techniques of the present disclosure, as described above in relation to the Figures." "The techniques of the present disclosure may be embodied as a computer program").
Stammers does not explicitly teach "initiating".
Vrzic teaches (please refer to Vrzic Fig. 12):
PNG
media_image6.png
519
700
media_image6.png
Greyscale
initiating control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device (Vrzic par. 108: UE 1202 sends an Attach Request 1210 to an Access Node (AN) 805) based on the selected network slices (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 undertakes a slice selection process 1214 in accordance with information received from the AN 805 in the Attach Request 1212; the SSF then sends an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805 in 1216. Par. 112: AN 805 sets up the CP connection 1220 and the UP connection 1222. Vrzic claims 36, 38: "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a control plane connection"; "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a user plane connection").
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers, by deploying a SSF which can select a slice in response to a UE attach request, and by configuring the AN to set up the CP and the UP connections, as suggested by Vrzic, in order to flexibly organize the network so as to serve various customer demands; also because network slicing provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks over which different traffic flows can travel, providing flexibility and adaptability which are desired features of 5G systems; also because managing variable and competing demands on a potentially large network scale is a complex proposition requiring an effective architecture and management (Vrzic par. 3); and to allow the instantiation of separate network slices respectively directed toward different network services, allowing separation of different types of traffic, the different types of traffic having different packet processing requirements and QoS requirements, enabling support of different services by different customized virtual networks which are substantially separate from one another from the customer's point of view, supporting therefore various network functionalities (Vrzic par. 34). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 7, Stammers teaches wherein receiving, by a network slice broker (Stammers' AMF 112 of Fig. 3), a slice request for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 36: The network deploys a network slice based on NSSAI provided by UE 102. Par. 43: Fig. 3 is a method of selecting network slice, session management and user plane functions for use in a session of a UE. Par. 44: in step 1, UE 101 sends to AMF 112, a session establishment request).
Stammers does not explicitly teach receiving, by the network slice broker, the slice request from one of the NSSFs.
Vrzic teaches (please refer to Vrzic Fig. 12) receiving, by the network slice broker, the slice request from one of the NSSFs (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 selects in 1214 the network slice to which the UE will be attached, and then SSF 810 transmits in 1216 an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers, by deploying a SSF which can select a slice in response to a UE attach request and then transmit to the AN and indication of the selected slice, and by configuring the AN to set up the CP and the UP connections, as suggested by Vrzic, in order to flexibly organize the network so as to serve various customer demands; also because network slicing provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks over which different traffic flows can travel, providing flexibility and adaptability which are desired features of 5G systems; also because managing variable and competing demands on a potentially large network scale is a complex proposition requiring an effective architecture and management (Vrzic par. 3); and to allow the instantiation of separate network slices respectively directed toward different network services, allowing separation of different types of traffic, the different types of traffic having different packet processing requirements and QoS requirements, enabling support of different services by different customized virtual networks which are substantially separate from one another from the customer's point of view, supporting therefore various network functionalities (Vrzic par. 34). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 8, Stammers teaches a method to serve a wireless user device (Stammers Fig. 4 represents a method; Fig. 3 represents a network performing the method and including a UE) with multiple network slices (Stammers teaches slice-specific network functions in par. 30-32 in reference to Fig. 1A, and in par. 33-36 in reference to Fig. 1B), the method comprising:
receiving, by a network slice broker (Stammers' AMF 112 of Fig. 3), a slice request for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 36: The network deploys a network slice based on NSSAI provided by UE 102. Par. 43: Fig. 3 is a method of selecting network slice, session management and user plane functions for use in a session of a UE. Par. 44: in step 1, UE 101 sends to AMF 112, a session establishment request);
selecting, by the network slice broker (Stammers' AMF 112 of Fig. 3), network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request (Stammers par. 46-49 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 3 and 4: AMF 112 selects SMF and UPF instances 120a, 122a, i.e., the AMF selects a network slice instance represented as slice 1 in Fig. 1b; the AMF also obtains an identity of the selected SMF instance);
transferring, by the network slice broker (Stammers' AMF 112 of Fig. 3), to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs equate to Stammers' SMF 120a of Fig. 3), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 50 in reference to Fig. 3 step 5: Using the identity of the selected SMF instance 120a, AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request. Step 6: AMF 112 also provides the identity or indication of the selected UPF instance 122a to SMF 120a – step 6 meets claimed indication of the selected network slices);
initiating, by the NSSFs (Stammers' SMF 120a of Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to replace Stammer's SMF 120a with Stammers' network slice selection function, NSSF, of par. 31, 36), control-planes (Stammers' steps 5, 6 of Fig. 3, par. 50-51: the AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request; steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request; par. 34 explains that the SMF is part of the control plane. The SMF 120a receiving the request and requesting the UPF to establish a session meets claimed "the NSSF initiating control-planes") and user-planes for the wireless user device (Stammers' user plane is initiated based on the request from SMF 120A in par. 51 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request, so that the selected UPF 122a will be used to carry traffic of the session for UE 102; UPF 122a belongs to the selected slice instance 1 in Fig. 1b) based on the network slices ("based on the selected network slices" is met because Stammers' step 7 in Fig. 3 occurs after step 4 where the AMF selects a UPF instance); and
transferring, by the user-planes, user data for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 41 in reference to Fig. 2: the selected UPF carries traffic of the session for the UE) in response to signaling from the control-planes (Stammers par. 41 in reference to Fig. 2: the SMF sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request; the SMF is part of the control plane, and therefore meets claimed "under control of the control-planes"), wherein the network slices, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices (Stammers par. 125: "FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a server, network device or equipment 1600 which may be used in some implementations of the present disclosure." "The one or more processors 1602 of the network equipment are configured to operate in accordance with program instructions 1608 stored in memory 1604, in order to perform basic functions as well as techniques of the present disclosure, as described above in relation to the Figures." "The techniques of the present disclosure may be embodied as a computer program").
Stammers does not explicitly teach "initiating".
Vrzic teaches (please refer to Vrzic Fig. 12):
transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the selected network slices (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 selects in 1214 the network slice to which the UE will be attached, and then SSF 810 transmits in 1216 an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805) for the wireless user device (Vrzic par. 108: UE 1202 sends an Attach Request 1210 to an Access Node (AN) 805); and
initiating control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device (Vrzic par. 108: UE 1202 sends an Attach Request 1210 to an Access Node (AN) 805) based on the selected network slices (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 undertakes a slice selection process 1214 in accordance with information received from the AN 805 in the Attach Request 1212; the SSF then sends an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805 in 1216. Par. 112: AN 805 sets up the CP connection 1220 and the UP connection 1222. Vrzic claims 36, 38: "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a control plane connection"; "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a user plane connection").
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers, by deploying a SSF which can select a slice in response to a UE attach request and then transmit to the AN and indication of the selected slice, and by configuring the AN to set up the CP and the UP connections, as suggested by Vrzic, in order to flexibly organize the network so as to serve various customer demands; also because network slicing provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks over which different traffic flows can travel, providing flexibility and adaptability which are desired features of 5G systems; also because managing variable and competing demands on a potentially large network scale is a complex proposition requiring an effective architecture and management (Vrzic par. 3); and to allow the instantiation of separate network slices respectively directed toward different network services, allowing separation of different types of traffic, the different types of traffic having different packet processing requirements and QoS requirements, enabling support of different services by different customized virtual networks which are substantially separate from one another from the customer's point of view, supporting therefore various network functionalities (Vrzic par. 34). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 14, Stammers teaches wherein receiving, by a network slice broker (Stammers' AMF 112 of Fig. 3), a slice request for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 36: The network deploys a network slice based on NSSAI provided by UE 102. Par. 43: Fig. 3 is a method of selecting network slice, session management and user plane functions for use in a session of a UE. Par. 44: in step 1, UE 101 sends to AMF 112, a session establishment request).
Stammers does not explicitly teach receiving, by the network slice broker, the slice request from one of the NSSFs.
Vrzic teaches (please refer to Vrzic Fig. 12) receiving, by the network slice broker, the slice request from one of the NSSFs (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 selects in 1214 the network slice to which the UE will be attached, and then SSF 810 transmits in 1216 an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers, by deploying a SSF which can select a slice in response to a UE attach request and then transmit to the AN and indication of the selected slice, and by configuring the AN to set up the CP and the UP connections, as suggested by Vrzic, in order to flexibly organize the network so as to serve various customer demands; also because network slicing provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks over which different traffic flows can travel, providing flexibility and adaptability which are desired features of 5G systems; also because managing variable and competing demands on a potentially large network scale is a complex proposition requiring an effective architecture and management (Vrzic par. 3); and to allow the instantiation of separate network slices respectively directed toward different network services, allowing separation of different types of traffic, the different types of traffic having different packet processing requirements and QoS requirements, enabling support of different services by different customized virtual networks which are substantially separate from one another from the customer's point of view, supporting therefore various network functionalities (Vrzic par. 34). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 15, Stammers teaches a wireless communication system to serve a wireless user device (Stammers Fig. 3 represents a network including a UE) with multiple network slices (Stammers teaches slice-specific network functions in par. 30-32 in reference to Fig. 1A, and in par. 33-36 in reference to Fig. 1B), the wireless communication system comprising:
a network slice broker (Stammers' AMF 112 of Fig. 3) configured to:
receive a slice request for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 36: The network deploys a network slice based on NSSAI provided by UE 102. Par. 43: Fig. 3 is a method of selecting network slice, session management and user plane functions for use in a session of a UE. Par. 44: in step 1, UE 101 sends to AMF 112, a session establishment request);
select network slices for the wireless user device in response to the slice request (Stammers par. 46-49 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 3 and 4: AMF 112 selects SMF and UPF instances 120a, 122a, i.e., the AMF selects a network slice instance represented as slice 1 in Fig. 1b; the AMF also obtains an identity of the selected SMF instance); and
transfer, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs equate to Stammers' SMF 120a of Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to replace Stammer's SMF 120a with Stammers' network slice selection function, NSSF, of par. 31, 36), a slice response indicating the selected network slices for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 50 in reference to Fig. 3 step 5: Using the identity of the selected SMF instance 120a, AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request. Step 6: AMF 112 also provides the identity or indication of the selected UPF instance 122a to SMF 120a – step 6 meets claimed indication of the selected network slices);
the NSSFs (Stammers' SMF 120a of Fig. 3) configured to initiate control-planes (Stammers' steps 5, 6 of Fig. 3, par. 50-51: the AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request; steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request; par. 34 explains that the SMF is part of the control plane. The SMF 120a receiving the request and requesting the UPF to establish a session meets claimed "the NSSF initiating control-planes") and user-planes for the wireless user device (Stammers' user plane is initiated based on the request from SMF 120A in par. 51 in reference to Fig. 3 steps 7, 8: SMF 120a sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request, so that the selected UPF 122a will be used to carry traffic of the session for UE 102; UPF 122a belongs to the selected slice instance 1 in Fig. 1b) based on the network slices ("based on the selected network slices" is met because Stammers' step 7 in Fig. 3 occurs after the selection step 4); and
the user-planes configured to transfer user data for the wireless user device (Stammers par. 41 in reference to Fig. 2: the selected UPF carries traffic of the session for the UE) in response to signaling from the control-planes (Stammers par. 41 in reference to Fig. 2: the SMF sends to the selected UPF 122a a message which includes a session establishment request; the SMF is part of the control plane, and therefore meets claimed "under control of the control-planes"), wherein the network slices, the control-planes, and the user-planes are implemented by software stored in one or more memory devices (Stammers par. 125: "FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a server, network device or equipment 1600 which may be used in some implementations of the present disclosure." "The one or more processors 1602 of the network equipment are configured to operate in accordance with program instructions 1608 stored in memory 1604, in order to perform basic functions as well as techniques of the present disclosure, as described above in relation to the Figures." "The techniques of the present disclosure may be embodied as a computer program").
Stammers does not explicitly teach "initiating".
Vrzic teaches (please refer to Vrzic Fig. 12):
transferring, by the network slice broker, to Network Slice Selection Functions (NSSFs), a slice response indicating the selected network slices (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 selects in 1214 the network slice to which the UE will be attached, and then SSF 810 transmits in 1216 an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805) for the wireless user device (Vrzic par. 108: UE 1202 sends an Attach Request 1210 to an Access Node (AN) 805); and
the NSSFs (AN 805 in Vrzic Fig. 12) configured to initiate control-planes and user-planes for the wireless user device (Vrzic par. 108: UE 1202 sends an Attach Request 1210 to an Access Node (AN) 805) based on the selected network slices (Vrzic par. 110: SSF 810 undertakes a slice selection process 1214 in accordance with information received from the AN 805 in the Attach Request 1212; the SSF then sends an indication of the selected slice to the AN 805 in 1216. Par. 112: AN 805 sets up the CP connection 1220 and the UP connection 1222. Vrzic claims 36, 38: "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a control plane connection"; "the step of initiating a connection setup includes initiating the setup of a user plane connection").
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers, by deploying a SSF which can select a slice in response to a UE attach request and then transmit to the AN and indication of the selected slice, and by configuring the AN to set up the CP and the UP connections, as suggested by Vrzic, in order to flexibly organize the network so as to serve various customer demands; also because network slicing provides the ability to create isolated virtual networks over which different traffic flows can travel, providing flexibility and adaptability which are desired features of 5G systems; also because managing variable and competing demands on a potentially large network scale is a complex proposition requiring an effective architecture and management (Vrzic par. 3); and to allow the instantiation of separate network slices respectively directed toward different network services, allowing separation of different types of traffic, the different types of traffic having different packet processing requirements and QoS requirements, enabling support of different services by different customized virtual networks which are substantially separate from one another from the customer's point of view, supporting therefore various network functionalities (Vrzic par. 34). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammers, in view of Vrzic, and further in view of Hu et al (publication number 2020/0204976), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, Stammers as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the control-planes are in different Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs).
Hu teaches wherein the control-planes are in different Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs) (Hu Fig. 2A and par. 57: home core network control plane (H-CP); visited core network control plane (V-CP); visited core network user plane (visited user plane, V-UP); par. 65: home core network user plane H-UP).
PNG
media_image7.png
360
712
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers as modified, by deploying Hu's home core network control plane (H-CP), visited core network control plane (V-CP), visited core network user plane (visited user plane, V-UP), and home core network user plane H-UP, as suggested by Hu, in order to implement offloading of the subscribed service of the terminal at the roaming location, reducing inter-network traffic consumption between the roaming location and the home location and improving service quality (Hu par. 7). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, Stammers as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the user-planes are in different Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs).
Hu teaches wherein the user-planes are in different Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMNs) (Hu Fig. 2A and par. 57: home core network control plane (H-CP); visited core network control plane (V-CP); visited core network user plane (visited user plane, V-UP); par. 65: home core network user plane H-UP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Stammers as modified, by deploying Hu's home core network control plane (H-CP), visited core network control plane (V-CP), visited core network user plane (visited user plane, V-UP), and home core network user plane H-UP, as suggested by Hu, in order to implement offloading of the subscribed service of the terminal at the roaming location, reducing inter-network traffic consumption between the roaming location and the home location and improving service quality (Hu par. 7). This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights