DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 3 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 3 February 2026, claims 1, 11, and 18 have been amended; claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 February 2026 has been entered.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US Pub. 2023/0081061) Abdelmalek et al. (US 2023/0119045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses one or more processors configured to acquire a first latency requirement for a first network connection to user equipment, wherein Yang discloses determining low-latency requirements for services such as live streaming and autonomous driving, which utilize a low-latency network slice (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses acquire a second latency requirement for a second network connection to the user equipment, wherein Yang discloses determining latency and bandwidth requirements for different services such as video streaming or video download, which utilize a different network slice having different latency characteristics (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses determine a first set of network functions for a first network slice based on the first latency requirement, wherein Yang discloses establishing a network connection using a low-latency network slice for services having low-latency requirements (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses determine a second set of network functions for a second network slice based on the second latency requirement, wherein Yang discloses selecting another network slice for services having different latency and bandwidth requirements (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses concurrently establish the first network connection to the user equipment using the first set of network functions for the first network slice and the second network connection to the user equipment using the second set of network functions for the second network slice, wherein Yang discloses enabling a user equipment to utilize multiple slice-based network connections corresponding to different service types (Yang ¶¶ [0032]-[0033], [0036]).
Yang does not specifically disclose:
identify a set of shared core network functions based on the first latency requirement and the second latency requirement;
wherein both the first set of network functions and the second set of network functions include the set of shared core network functions.
Abdelmalek discloses that “inter-operator mobility service may pair MNO/MSO shared AMF 215-1 with MSO/MNO shared core devices 220-1 or MSO dedicated core devices 220-2” (Abdelmalek ¶ [0040]).
Abdelmalek further discloses that “an MSO/MNO shared SMF ... or an MSO dedicated SMF ... may be selected to support the default network slice in conjunction with MNO/MSO shared AMF 215-1” and that “an MSO/MNO shared UPF ... or an MSO dedicated UPF ... may be selected to support the default network slice in conjunction with MSO shared AMF 215-2” (Abdelmalek ¶ [0040]).
Abdelmalek therefore discloses shared core network functions utilized across network slices, including shared AMF and shared core devices used in conjunction with slice-specific network functions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yang to incorporate the shared core network function architecture taught by Abdelmalek in order to reduce duplication of core network resources, improve deployment flexibility, and support efficient concurrent operation of multiple network slices having different latency requirements.
Claim 2
The system of claim 1, wherein:the user equipment comprises a mobile computing device, the one or more processors configured to receive a first set of data packets and a second set of data packets from the mobile computing device;the first set of network functions includes at least one virtualized network function that is not included in the set of shared core network functions, the second set of network functions does not include the at least one virtualized network function; andthe first set of data packets is transported using the first network connection while the second set of data packets is transported using the second network connection.
– Disclosed in Yang fig. 2, para. 32-33, 59, 80 which describes a mobile terminal generating multiple application-specific slice requests for different services
Claim 3
The system of claim 1, wherein:the one or more processors are configured to update the first set of network functions based on an update to the first latency requirement for the first network connection to the user equipment and cause a reconfiguration of the first network slice based on the updated first set of network functions,the reconfiguration of the first network slice includes redeploying a user plane function from a first server to a second server different from the first server.
– See Yang para. 37 which explicitly describes reconfiguring the slice and establishing corresponding network connection according to the network slice selection.
Claim 5
The system of claim 1, wherein:the first latency requirement comprises a one-way latency requirement to the user equipment.
– See Table 1, para. 32, 80.
Regarding claim 18, Yang discloses identify a first set of network functions for a first network slice based on a first latency requirement for a first network connection to user equipment, wherein Yang discloses establishing a network connection using a low-latency network slice for services having low-latency requirements (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses identify a second set of network functions for a second network slice based on a second latency requirement for a second network connection to the user equipment, wherein Yang discloses selecting another network slice for services having different latency and bandwidth requirements (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses configure the first network slice to connect the user equipment to a data network and configure the second network slice to connect the user equipment to the data network, wherein Yang discloses establishing multiple slice-based network connections corresponding to different service types (Yang ¶¶ [0032]-[0033], [0036]).
Yang does not specifically disclose:
• identify a set of shared core network functions that includes a policy control function (PCF) and a network slice selection function (NSSF);
• wherein the first set of network functions includes the set of shared core network functions and a first access and mobility management function (AMF) and a first session management function (SMF) and a first user plane function (UPF); and
• wherein the second set of network functions includes the set of shared core network functions and a second AMF and a second SMF and a second UPF.
Lu further discloses that “the NSSF network element ... may be shared among multiple network slices,” that “the PCF network element may be shared among multiple network slices,” and that “the SMF network element may generally belong to a specific network slice” (Lu ¶ [0039]).
Lu further discloses that “the AMF network element may be shared among multiple network slices” (Lu ¶ [0039]), which teaches AMF functionality within multi-slice architectures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yang to incorporate the shared PCF/NSSF multi-slice architecture taught by Lu in order to support centralized policy management and slice selection while enabling different slice-specific network function sets for different latency requirements.
Claims 4, 6-8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Abdelmalek and further in view of Yang et al (US 2021/0092647), hereinafter “Yang2”.
Regarding claim 4, Yang further discloses wherein:the one or more processors are configured to adjust a placement of the first set of network functions … hierarchy based on an updated latency requirement for the first network connection to the user equipment.
– Disclosed in Yang para. 37, updating of user equipment route selection (URSP) policy when a geographical location of the terminal device changes.
Yang-Abdelmalek does not specifically discloses the network functions in a data center. However, Yang2 from an analogous art discloses an edge cloud including data centers which handles data closer to destination device, thereby reducing latency (para. 29). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Yang2 in the network of Yang-Abdelmalek in order to reduce latency.
Regarding claim 6, Yang further discloses wherein:the one or more processors are configured to adjust a placement of the first set of network functions … hierarchy based on a quality of service parameter associated with the first network connection to the user equipment.
– See para. 121, updating slice information and USRP rule list.
Yang-Abdelmalek does not specifically disclose the network functions in a data center. However, Yang2 from an analogous art discloses an edge cloud including data centers which handles data closer to destination device, thereby reducing latency (para. 29). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Yang2 in the network of Yang-Abdelmalek in order to reduce latency.
Claim 7
The system of claim 6, wherein:the quality of service parameter comprises a minimum network speed to the user equipment.
– See Yang para. 32, 33.
Claim 8
The system of claim 6, wherein:the quality of service parameter comprises an end-to-end latency from the user equipment to a data network.
– See Yang para. 32, 33.
Claims 19 and 20 recite substantially identical subject matter as recited in claims 4 and 6, respectively, and are thus similarly rejected.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0081061 A1) in view of Abdelmalek et al. (US 2023/0119045 A1), and further in view of Lu et al. (US 2024/0314857 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yang discloses determining a first latency requirement for a first network connection to user equipment, wherein Yang discloses determining low-latency requirements for services such as live streaming and autonomous driving, which utilize a low-latency network slice (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses determining a second latency requirement for a second network connection to the user equipment, wherein Yang discloses determining latency and bandwidth requirements for different services such as video streaming or video download, which utilize a different network slice having different latency characteristics (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses determining a first set of network functions for a first network slice based on the first latency requirement, wherein Yang discloses establishing a network connection using a low-latency network slice for services having low-latency requirements (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses determining a second set of network functions for a second network slice based on the second latency requirement, wherein Yang discloses selecting another network slice for services having different latency and bandwidth requirements (Yang ¶ [0033]).
Yang further discloses concurrently establishing the first network connection to the user equipment using the first CU-UP and the first SMF and the first UPF of the first set of network functions for the first network slice and the second network connection to the user equipment using the second CU-UP and the second SMF and the second UPF of the second set of network functions for the second network slice, wherein Yang discloses enabling a user equipment to utilize multiple slice-based network connections corresponding to different service types (Yang ¶¶ [0032]-[0033], [0036]).
Yang does not specifically disclose:
identifying a set of shared core network functions based on the first latency requirement and the second latency requirement, wherein the set of shared core network functions includes an access and mobility management function (AMF), a policy control function (PCF), and a network slice selection function (NSSF);
wherein the first set of network functions includes the set of shared core network functions and a first CU-UP and a first SMF and a first UPF; and
wherein the second set of network functions includes the set of shared core network functions and a second CU-UP and a second SMF and a second UPF.
Abdelmalek discloses that “inter-operator mobility service may pair MNO/MSO shared AMF 215-1 with MSO/MNO shared core devices 220-1 or MSO dedicated core devices 220-2” (Abdelmalek ¶ [0040]).
Abdelmalek further discloses that “an MSO/MNO shared SMF ... or an MSO dedicated SMF ... may be selected to support the default network slice in conjunction with MNO/MSO shared AMF 215-1” and that “an MSO/MNO shared UPF ... or an MSO dedicated UPF ... may be selected to support the default network slice in conjunction with MSO shared AMF 215-2” (Abdelmalek ¶ [0040]).
Lu further discloses that “the NSSF network element, the DN network element, the UDM network element, and the AMF network element may be shared among multiple network slices,” that “the SMF network element may generally belong to a specific network slice,” and that “the PCF network element may be shared among multiple network slices” (Lu ¶ [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yang to incorporate the shared-core-function network slicing architecture taught by Abdelmalek and Lu in order to reduce duplication of control-plane functions, improve deployment flexibility, and support efficient concurrent operation of multiple network slices having different latency requirements.
Claim 12
The method of claim 11, wherein: the user equipment comprises a mobile computing device.
- See Yang Fig. 7, terminal device.
Claim 13
The method of claim 12, further comprising: updating the first set of network functions based on an updated latency requirement for the first network connection to the mobile computing device; and reconfiguring the first network slice based on the updated first set of network functions.
– See Yang para. 32, 33.
Claim 14
The method of claim 12, further comprising: updating the first set of network functions based on an updated quality of service parameter; and reconfiguring the first network slice based on the updated first set of network functions.
– See Yang para. 32, 33.
Claim 16
The method of claim 11, wherein: the first latency requirement comprises a one-way latency requirement to the user equipment.
– See Yang para. 32, 33.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Abdelmalek and Lu, and further in view of Yang et al (US 2021/0092647), hereinafter “Yang2”.
Regarding claim 15, Yang further discloses wherein:adjusting a placement of the first set of network functions … hierarchy based on an updated latency requirement for the first network connection to the mobile computing device.
– Disclosed in Yang para. 37, updating of user equipment route selection (URSP) policy when a geographical location of the terminal device changes.
Yang-Adelmalek-Lu does not specifically discloses the network functions in a data center. However, Yang2 from an analogous art discloses an edge cloud including data centers which handles data closer to destination device, thereby reducing latency (para. 29). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Yang2 in the network of Yang-Adelmalek-Lu in order to reduce latency.
Regarding claim 17, Yang further discloses wherein:adjusting a placement of the first set of network functions … hierarchy based on a quality of service parameter associated with the first network connection to the mobile computing device.
– See para. 121, updating slice information and USRP rule list.
Yang-Adelmalek-Lu does not specifically disclose the network functions in a data center. However, Yang2 from an analogous art discloses an edge cloud including data centers which handles data closer to destination device, thereby reducing latency (para. 29). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Yang2 in the network of Yang-Adelmalek-Lu in order to reduce latency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights