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 Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 18 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 7-8] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 11, 16 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on page 7, Applicant argues that Farmanbar fails to teach “identifying, by a device, an application being executed in accordance with a first user profile associated with a user”, as well as “identifying, by the device, based on the determined information, a first slice profile for the first user profile”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
Although the Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s arguments and explanations about the intended claimed invention, the Examiner also notes that the claim is not providing further details or definitions for the claimed “application, user profile, and slice profile” or the context for these terms; thus, the Examiner broadly interprets these terms in view of Farmanbar, as Farmanbar teaches the identification and execution of applications based on profile of users and later the identification of slices [Paragraphs 6, 30-36]. It is worth noting that, by labeling profiles as “user profile or slice profile”, without defining them, those terms are interpreted as “profiles”.
Also, on page 8, Applicant argues that Li fails to teach “the first slice profile being identified from a universal software radio peripheral (USRP) table hosted by the device, the first slice profile comprising specified network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of the first user profile”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and submits as follows.
In addition to the previous analysis regarding missing details for “user profiles and slice profiles”, for this limitation, it is not providing further details for the “network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of first user profile”. That is, the Examiner is not precluded from interpreting this limitation as an identification of a profile from a USRP table, as taught by Li [Paragraphs 21, 62-63, 68, 72, 74-75, 77-78], because it does not specify what the “functionality… type” is or refers to.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully recommends the incorporation of details that preclude the Examiner from instant interpretation, where those details could specify what or how the argued application is being executed, as well as the specification of what the user profile and slice profile the claim intends to indicate, and what the “network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of first user profile” is.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, these claims comprise similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 13-16, 18-20 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12, 15-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmanbar et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0191563) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0322867).
Regarding claim 1, Farmanbar teaches a method (Figs. 2-3) comprising:
identifying, by a device an application being executed in accordance with a first user profile associated with a user (app platform is identified based on profile of a user [Paragraphs 6, 30-36]);
determining, by the device, information related to the first user profile and the application (info about the user profile and app is determined[Paragraphs 7, 35, 38]);
identifying, by the device, based on the determined information, a first slice profile for the first user profile ([Paragraphs 6-7]. Additionally, the claim is not providing further details or definitions for the claimed “application, user profile, and slice profile” or the context for these terms; thus, the Examiner broadly interprets these terms in view of Farmanbar, as Farmanbar teaches the identification and execution of applications based on profile of users and later the identification of slices [Paragraphs 6, 30-36]. It is worth noting that, by labeling profiles as “user profile or slice profile”, without defining them, those terms are interpreted as “profiles”), [
establishing, by the device, via a network, a packet data unit (PDU) session for the application based on the first slice profile (PDU session is established for the app based on the slice profile [Paragraphs 28, 56, 58, 63]).
However, Farmanbar does not explicitly mention: the first slice profile being identified from a universal software radio peripheral (USRP) table hosted by the device, the first slice profile comprising specified network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of the first user profile.
Li teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
the first slice profile being identified from a universal software radio peripheral (USRP) table hosted by the device, the first slice profile comprising specified network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of the first user profile (slice profile being identified from USRP based on a type of user profile [Paragraphs 21, 62-63, 68, 72, 74-75, 77-78]. Additionally, for this limitation, it is not providing further details for the “network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of first user profile”. That is, the Examiner is not precluded from interpreting this limitation as an identification of a profile from a USRP table, as taught by Li [Paragraphs 21, 62-63, 68, 72, 74-75, 77-78], because it does not specify what the “functionality… type” is or refers to).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Farmanbar) by identifying slice profiles based on USRP (as taught by Li) for the purpose of improving communication connections (Li – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 2, Farmanbar further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the PDU session for the first slice profile corresponds to network traffic with a specific network resource that corresponds to the type of the first user profile ([Paragraph 25-28, 30, 36]).
Regarding claim 5, Farmanbar further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the USRP comprises a profile data structure comprising parameters associated with each user profile of the application, wherein each parameter corresponds to a slice profile for each user profile ([Paragraphs 6, 38, 40, 45-46, 49]).
Regarding claim 7, Li further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the USRP is hosted by an integrated circuit on the device ([Paragraphs 47, 156]).
Regarding claim 8, Li further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the integrated circuit is one of a modem and subscriber identity module (SIM) component associated with the device ([Paragraphs 47, 156]).
Regarding claim 9, Farmanbar further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the application information comprises an application identifier (ID) ([Paragraph 40, 52]).
Regarding claim 10, Farmanbar further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying device information related to the device, wherein the determination of the slice profile is further based on the device information ([Paragraphs 6-7, 54]).
Regarding claims 11-12, 15, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2, 8.
Regarding claims 16-17, 20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-2, 7-8.
Claims 3-4, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmanbar et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0191563) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0322867) and further in view of Shekhar et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0189115).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Farmanbar and Li teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, the combination of Farmanbar and Li does not explicitly mention: determining a switch to a second user profile for the application; identifying, from the USRP table, a second slice profile, the second slice profile comprising specified network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of the second user profile; and establishing, over the network, another PDU session for the application based on the second slice profile, the other PDU session.
Shekhar teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
determining a switch to a second user profile for the application; identifying, from the USRP table, a second slice profile, the second slice profile comprising specified network slicing functionality corresponding to a type of the second user profile; and establishing, over the network, another PDU session for the application based on the second slice profile, the other PDU session (switch to several profiles is determined based on slicing of the switched profile, thus establishing other PDU sessions [Paragraphs 9, 11, 17, 20-21, 23-25, 39]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Farmanbar) by identifying slice profiles based on USRP (as taught by Li) by switching to other profiles (as taught by Shekhar) for the purpose of managing networks (Shekhar – Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4, Shekhar further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the other PDU session for the second slice profile corresponds to network traffic with a specific network resource that corresponds to the type of the second user profile ([Paragraphs 20-21, 50, 55]).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected as applied to claims 3-4.
Claims 6, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmanbar et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0191563) in view of Li et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0322867) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0352501).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Farmanbar and Li teaches all the limitations recited in claim 5.
However, the combination of Farmanbar and Li does not explicitly mention: wherein each slice profile is mapped to a respective user profile by one of an operation support systems (OSS) and business support systems (BSS) component on the network.
Zhang teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein each slice profile is mapped to a respective user profile by one of an operation support systems (OSS) and business support systems (BSS) component on the network ([Paragraphs 17, 20, 26, 44, 72, 81]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Farmanbar) by identifying slice profiles based on USRP (as taught by Li) by mapping OSS/BSS (as taught by Zhang) for the purpose of improving reliability of the system (Shekhar – Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected as applied to claims 5-6.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
March 13, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633