DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In response to the Office action mailed on 12/5/2025, the applicants have filed a response: claims 1 and 12 have been amended, claims 19 – 21 have been cancelled and claims 22 and 23 have been added. Claims 1 – 18, 22 and 23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1 – 8, 11 – 17, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammers et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0313983) (Stammers hereinafter) (Identified in IDS by Applicant) in view of Pateromichelakis at al. (U.S. Publication 2024/0193021) (Pateromichelakis hereinafter) and (Senerath (U.S. Publication 2018/0316564).
8. As per claim 1, Stammers teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving a request for invoking a service application programming interface (API) [“API logic 312 of API-GW 310 may include instructions that, when executed (e.g., by processor(s) of API-GW 310) may facilitate various operations including, but not limited to: receiving and transmitting API procedure calls, providing enterprise exposure and control over (e.g., for provisioning) mobile network services that may be provided via an enterprise slice 330A-330C for enterprise devices 304(1)-304(N) associated with the enterprise for one or more contracted mobile network services,” ¶ 0055].
Stammers does not explicitly disclose but Pateromichelakis discloses mapping
the service API to a slice API based on slice information associated with the slice API [“Disclosed herein is the configuration and provisioning of the mapping of new type of application programming interface (“API”) (e.g., a platform independent API, a network slice API, and/or a portability API, described below) to the platform dependent implementations of management or control plane APIs,” ¶ 0030; “a middleware/enabler server 202 (e.g., a network slice enabler, middleware, application function, network function, management function, or the like), at an edge/regional/core network/platform 201c, receives a service parameter that may include a service exposure level, a service accessibility indication, a service availability indication, a list based on the authorization of the application 204a-b, and/or the like from the telco service provider 206, which may be the M&O domain, as well as the SLA/SLS for an application/service type. In certain embodiments, this may be related to a network slice. In this case, the telco service provider 206 is the slice provider, and this step includes an application-to-slice mapping based on the vertical application subscriptions, a slice to service exposure mapping from slice provider, or the like. The input for configuring slice APIs is the SLS provided by the Management system or GST/NEST provided by GSMA and/or the application to slice mapping as provided by the application/NSE/network,” ¶ 0092; service parameter relating to network slice suggests association with Slice API].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stammers and Pateromichelakis available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of enterprise slice management as taught by Stammers to include the capability of API translation as disclosed by Pateromichelakis, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by accessing existing system resources.
Stammers and Pateromichelakis do not explicitly disclose but Senarath discloses invoking the slice API by causing invocation of at least one service API associated with the slice API [“the management exposure function is configured to expose the first slice specific management function to the customer by any one or more of: an Application Programming Interface (API) to the customer, the API configured to enable the customer to interact with the first slice specific management function,” cl. 7; “Communication services 218 may allow applications 214 hosted on a single server 200 to communicate with the application-platform services 212 (through pre-defined Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for example) and with each other (for example through a service-specific API),” ¶ 0039; allowing communication via APIs suggests invocation].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of enterprise slice management as taught by Stammers to include the capability of provisioning network slices as disclosed by Senarath, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by leveraging system resources.
9. As per claim 2, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers further teaches wherein: receiving the request for invoking the service API comprises receiving a first service parameter from an application over the service API [“In the translation from the enterprise 104 perspective to the MNO/SP 102 implementation, the MNO/SP 102 may determine whether slice management approaches are applicable to enterprise services requested by enterprise 104. For example, a determination may be made as to whether there is a suitable enterprise slice available to meet the requested parameters (e.g., services/service options) for an enterprise template 106,” ¶ 0041];
translating the service API to the slice API comprises determining a second service parameter based on the first service parameter and a level of slice capability exposure [“The type of translation from requested enterprise service template 106 parameters (e.g., services, service options, and enterprise device (member) identities) to an enterprise slice 112 configuration will depend on the specific use-case,” ¶ 0043]; and
invoking the translated slice API comprises transmitting the second service parameter to at least one service producer over the translated slice API [“API logic 922 may include instructions that, when executed (e.g., by processor(s) 902) may facilitate various operations including, but not limited to: receiving/transmitting API procedure calls (e.g., via an API such as API 318 in communication with one or more enterprise hosted application(s) within an enterprise network(s)) ; providing enterprise exposure and control over (e.g., for provisioning) mobile network services that may be provided via an enterprise slice for enterprise devices associated with one or more enterprises (e.g., for shared enterprise slices) for one or more contracted network services of the one or more enterprises,” ¶ 0129].
10. As per claim 3, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Senarath further teaches transmitting a response to at least one application after invoking the translated slice API [“The NSMF 412 may then send a Slice Response message to the CSMF 404 as a response to the Slice Request (step 712),” ¶ 0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of enterprise slice management as taught by Stammers to include the capability of provisioning network slices as disclosed by Senarath, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by leveraging system resources.
11. As per claim 4, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 2. Stammers further teaches wherein the first service parameter comprises a network parameter, a network function parameter, a managed function parameter, a managed entity attribute, a management service parameter, an application parameter, a slice parameter, a service parameter, a general network slice template parameter, an upper layer parameter related to the application or the network, or a combination thereof [“In the translation from the enterprise 104 perspective to the MNO/SP 102 implementation, the MNO/SP 102 may determine whether slice management approaches are applicable to enterprise services requested by enterprise 104. For example, a determination may be made as to whether there is a suitable enterprise slice available to meet the requested parameters (e.g., services/service options) for an enterprise template 106,” ¶ 0041; “services/service options” suggest a general network slice template parameter]
12. As per claim 5, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 2. Stammers further teaches wherein the second service parameter comprises a network parameter, a network function parameter, a managed function parameter, a managed entity attribute, a management service parameter, an application parameter, a slice parameter, an entity provided parameter, a service parameter, a general network slice template parameter, an upper layer parameter related to the application or the network, or a combination thereof [“The type of translation from requested enterprise service template 106 parameters (e.g., services, service options, and enterprise device (member) identities) to an enterprise slice 112 configuration will depend on the specific use-case,” ¶ 0043; “services” suggest a service parameter].
13. As per claim 6, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers further teaches wherein the slice API comprises at least one service API, at least a portion of one service API, or a combination thereof [“the operations may include identifying an enterprise slice type to provide the one or more mobile network services/service options to the enterprise devices. In at least one embodiment, the enterprise slice type may be identified by the API-GW based on the one or more enterprise services/service options requested by the enterprise. Recall, the slice manager may communicate at least a portion of slice information including the slice type identifying indicators and mobile network services/service options associated with each slice type to the API - GW following translation,” ¶ 0114].
14. As per claim 7, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers further teaches receiving slice information before receiving the request for invoking the service API, wherein the slice information comprises application to slice subscriptions, slice profiles, service profiles, slice exposure requirements, slice to service mapping, or a combination thereof [“The defined information, parameters, etc. can be codified into an enterprise model that can be configured for the slice manager. In various embodiments, the enterprise model may provide for different levels of security or segmentation of network traffic and subscriber state for contracted or expected mobile network services offered to enterprises via enterprise services identified via one or more enterprise service templates, may incorporate latency assurances for contracted or expected mobile network services that may be provided enterprises/enterprise devices, may incorporate different mobile network services for different types of traffic, service options, geographic locations, member identities, etc. for contracted or expected mobile network services that may be provided for enterprises/enterprise devices, and/or may incorporate different availability and resiliency features for contracted or expected mobile network services that may be provided for enterprises/enterprise devices. Other features, services, etc. for translating enterprise service template parameters to one or more enterprise slice types can be envisioned,” ¶ 0077; subscriber state mapped to slice subscriptions].
15. As per claim 8, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers further teaches authorizing mapping the service application programing interface to the slice API before translating the service API to the slice API [“enterprises typically wish to request functionality or services from an SP in order to extend their enterprise network into the SP mobile network in which the definition of this extension maps into one or more enterprise slices that satisfy use-cases described in terms well understood by an enterprise,” ¶ 0031].
16. As per claim 11, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers further teaches wherein invoking the translated slice API comprises making a translated slice API request to a service producer, receiving a translated slice API response from the service producer, or a combination thereof [“Following inputs provided to the enterprise service template, the template may be submitted to the API-GW, which may determine an enterprise slice type to provide the requested mobile network services to the enterprise. In various embodiments, submitting a service template to the API-GW may include, but not be limited to: a GUI submit, a commit action via the API, an API request (e.g., for requesting a slice that can serve a populated template), combinations thereof, and/or the like,” ¶ 0098; requesting a slice suggests making a request to a service provider].
17. As per claim 12, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
18. As per claim 13, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
19. As per claim 14, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
20. As per claim 15, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
21. As per claim 16, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
22. As per claim 17, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
23. As per claim 22, it is an method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
24. As per claim 23, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
25. Claims 9, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senerath (U.S. Publication 2018/0316564) in further view of Bedekar et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0385682) (Bedekar hereinafter).
26. As per claim 9, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath do not explicitly disclose but Bedekar discloses wherein the service API comprises a control API, a network exposure function application programming interface API, a service capability exposure function API, a management API, a metro ethernet forum API, an exposure governance management function API, a management service API, a service enabler architecture layer API, an application function API, a mobile edge computing API, an open radio access network (RAN) API, a radio access network RAN intelligent controller API, or a combination thereof [“Controller-to-RAN API: to enable Controller to provide instructions to the RAN such as: Requesting RAN to provide neural network support information, e.g., which may include a list of types of neural networks (NNs) supported by the RAN node, list of RAN functions that use NNs, hardware capability descriptors, etc.,” ¶ 0100; providing neural network support mapped to intelligent function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stammers, Pateromichelakis, Senarath and Bedekar available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of enterprise slice management as taught by Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath to include the capability of configuring a RAN neural network as disclosed by Bedekar, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by optimizing radio network capabilities.
27. As per claim 10, Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath teach the method of claim 1. Stammers, Pateromichelakis and Senarath do not explicitly disclose but Bedekar discloses wherein the method is performed by an entity having a form of: a network slice enabler, a middleware, a slice enabling service, a slice enabling function, a mobile edge computing platform function, an edge enabler server, an edge enabler client, an xApp, an rApp, an API management service, a radio access network (RAN) intelligent controller function, or a combination thereof [“Controller-to-RAN API: to enable Controller to provide instructions to the RAN such as: Requesting RAN to provide neural network support information, e.g., which may include a list of types of neural networks (NNs) supported by the RAN node, list of RAN functions that use NNs, hardware capability descriptors, etc.,” ¶ 0100; providing neural network support mapped to intelligent function].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Stammers, Pateromichelakis, Senarath and Bedekar available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of enterprise slice management as taught by Stammers and Senarath to include the capability of configuring a RAN neural network as disclosed by Bedekar, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by optimizing radio network capabilities.
28. As per claim 18, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
30. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
31. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights