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 1/16/2026.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 after Final Rejection
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
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
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:
“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>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections set forth in this office action, and 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.
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 pages 6, 7, that the Office Action identifies Applicant's argument (identified in the Office Action as Argument 4) that starting, initiating, or otherwise instantiating a network function is different than transferring a request to an already active network function to perform an operation (e.g., serve a UE). Office Action, pg. 12. The Office Action states that this argument is not persuasive because the argument asserts that the reference fails to show certain features that are not recited in the rejected claims. Id, pg. 12. Applicant disagrees. The Office Action misinterprets Applicant's argument. Applicant did not assert that the cited art fails to teach transferring a request an already active network function to perform an operation (e.g., serve a UE). Instead, Applicant attributed this feature to the cited art and asserted that this is different than starting, initiating, or otherwise instantiating a network function. Control planes and user planes include network functions/elements like AMF, SMF, UPF, and the like. Therefore, Applicant did not rely on features that are not present in the rejected claims to argue differences between the cited art and claim 1. Instead, Applicant pointed out differences between features of the cited art (i.e., transferring a request to an already active network function) and features that are at least similar to limitations recited by claim 1 (i.e., starting, initiating, or otherwise instantiating a network function). Applicant maintains that the cited art does not teach or reasonably suggest initiating control planes and user planes as recited by claim 1. Applicant maintains that the cited art does not teach or reasonably suggest similar features like starting or instantiating network functions, network elements, control planes, user planes, and the like.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants’ argument, because the Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c), because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In this case, the Applicants argue that "The Office Action misinterprets Applicant's argument"; however, this argument does not point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references. The claims do not require for the control plane and the user plane to be inactive prior to the "initiating" step, and for the "initiating" step to make the control plane and user plane become active. When Stammers' AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request (par. 34 explains that the SMF is part of the control plane), SMF 120 initiates creation of a session. That is sufficient to teach claimed "initiating".
Argument 2: Applicants argue, on pages 7, 8, that amended claim 1 recites initiating control-planes and user planes for the wireless user device based on the selected network slices. Applicant can find no teaching or reasonable suggestion in the art of record that renders obvious this limitation. The cited portions of Stammers are now discussed. The Office Action asserts that paragraphs 50 and 51 of Stammers teach this limitation. Office Action, pg. 28-29. Paragraph 50 of Stammers discusses an AMF sending a create session request to an SMF and paragraph 51 of Stammers discusses an SMF sending a session establishment request to a UPF. An SMF is a type of control plane Fifth Generation Core (SOC) network function while a UPF is a type of user plane SOC network function. The Office Action equates initiating a control plane and user plane with sending a request to an already active control plane and an already active user plane. Initiating control planes and user planes as recited by amended claim 1 or performing similar operations like starting or instantiating network functions is different than transferring a request to an already active network function to perform an operation as discussed by Stammers (e.g., serve a UE). The network functions of Stammers appear to be already active. For example, Stammers does not suggest that the AMF should interface with a network orchestrator to initiate, instantiate, or start the SMF or other control/user plane entity. Therefore, Stammers does not discuss initiating control planes and user plans, but instead discusses using already active network functions to serve a user device. As such, the cited art does not teach or reasonably suggest initiating control-planes and user planes for the wireless user device based on the selected network slices as recited by amended.
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 Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., for the control plane and the user plane need to be inactive prior to the "initiating" step, and for the "initiating" step to make the control plane and user plane become active) are not recited in the rejected claims. 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 for the control plane and the user plane to be inactive prior to the "initiating" step, and for the "initiating" step to make the control plane and user plane become active. When Stammers' AMF 112 sends to the selected SMF 120a a create session request (par. 34 explains that the SMF is part of the control plane), SMF 120 initiates creation of a session. That is sufficient to teach claimed "initiating".
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.
7.20.02.aia 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), 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), 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
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