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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument that the reference Panchal (U.S. Pub. No. 20220264540) fails to show certain features of Applicant’s invention (i.e. “wherein the slice authorization performed on the default network slice includes transmitting an authorization request to a slice authorization function and receiving an authorization response authorizing the mobile device to operate on the specific network slice”).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, and very kindly directs the Applicant to reference Panchal: In e.g. fig. 4, fig. 6, fig. 7, ¶ [0065], ¶ [0066], and ¶ [0072], which discussed the main concept of switching a PDU session associated with application 310 to a new slice (i.e. from a default or initial slice) and/or switch the traffic associated with application 310 to a different slice based on determining that the user has purchased a subscription level that allows (i.e. authorizes) the user to access the network using the particular slice when using application 310.
Furthermore, as shown in fig. 4, #412 and #414, Panchal discussed the communication on the network-side i.e. the request and/or acknowledgement between application management server #306 and Policy Control Function #254 on determining that the user has purchased a subscription level that allows (i.e. authorizes) the user to access the network using the particular slice when using application 310. The communication between the management server 306 and PCF 254 includes at least in a part a request for updated slice subscription (i.e. allowed slice(s)) associated with a specific application 310.
Thus, PCF 254/NEF 258 may transmit a recommendation (i.e. ack fig. 4, #414, #416, the recommended slices are available to be used by application 310) to application management server 306 to update traffic routing for application 310 to a new slice (block 710). In one implementation, PCF 254/NEF 258 may additionally transmit an identifier associated with the subscriber, an identifier associated with application 310, an identifier associated with the recommended new slice (e.g., S-NSSAI), and a slice key (also see, pp0051, pp0057, and pp0071). (Emphasis Added).
In summary, given the at least claimed limitations in question its’ broadest reasonable interpretation, Panchal discussed that based on the requested updated slice subscription information transmitted by server 306 to the PCF 254, the PCF provides acknowledgement of updated slice subscription information (i.e. allowed slices) associated with application 310 which may include slice key.
Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments (i.e. The Examiner's theory-delivery of a "slice key" and UE-side "determin[ation] ... based on the slice key" that the application "has been given authorization"-describes at most UE-side use of a credential/token, not a network-performed authorization procedure.), the slice authorization in Panchal is requested and/or determined based on the communication between network devices (i.e. server 306 and PCF 354) as shown and/or discussed above. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s alleged “Examiner’s theory”.
In conclusion, the claim does not uniquely and/or particularly define the at least limitation in question so as to distinguish from the applied prior art. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. The limitation is broadly claimed, therefore, is fairly characterized as discussed above. Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Panchal et al. (US Publication No. 20220264540).
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Panchal teaches a method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, and an apparatus comprising: one or more memories having computer-readable instructions stored therein; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig.3): establish a Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session for a mobile device on a default network slice (fig. 2, fig. 3, fig. 7, #704); determine an application to be used on the mobile device (fig. 2, fig. 3, fig. 7, #706, and pp0070, application launch); determine a specific network slice for servicing the application used on the mobile device (fig. 2, fig. 3, fig. 7, #708, #710, and pp0071, switch to new slice associated with the application); performing, on the default network slice, slice authorization for the mobile device to use the specific network slice (fig. 2, fig. 3, fig. 6, fig. 7, #704, pp0072, Operating system 302 may determine, based on the slice key, that application 310 has been given authorization to use the new slice and operating system 302 may direct modem 304 to use the new slice for traffic associated with application 310, and pp0065), wherein the slice authorization performed on the default network slice includes transmitting an authorization request to a slice authorization function and receiving an authorization response authorizing the mobile device to operate on the specific network slice (fig. 1, fig. 4, #412, #414, #416, request and receive acknowledged updated subscription information of allowed recommended slices to be used by application 310, fig. 6, fig. 7, and pp0071, PCF 254/NEF 258 may transmit a recommendation to application management server 306 to update traffic routing for application 310 to a new slice (block 710). In one implementation, PCF 254/NEF 258 may additionally transmit an identifier associated with the subscriber, an identifier associated with application 310, an identifier associated with the recommended new slice (e.g., S-NSSAI), and a slice key); and configure the mobile device to use the application on the specific network slice (fig. 2, fig. 3, fig. 7, #712, #714, #716, and pp0072, notify application shifted to new slice, and modem 304, initiate session using the new slice).
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, Panchal teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to configure the mobile device to: configure User Route Selection Policy (URSP) for using the specific network slice application, on the mobile device (fig. 1, fig. 3, pp0057, PCF 254 may update the URSP with a new set of allowed slices that include the recommended slices (block 514). Core devices 155 may transmit the updated URSP with the recommended slices to UE 190); and establish a new PDU session for the mobile device on the specific network slice using the URSP (fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0012, the URSP allows a UE device to match an application, with its specific network service requirements to a specific network slice that is configured to provide the required level of service for the application, and pp0034, PCF 254 may trigger the URSP, which enables UE device 190 to determine how an application should be handled in the context of an existing or new PDU session).
As to claims 7 and 14, Panchal teaches wherein the PDU session over the default network slice and a new PDU session on the specific network slice are established with a User Plane Function (UPF) of a 5G core network (fig. 1, fig. 2, and pp0028, wirelessly connect to access station 115 using 5G Radio Access Technology (RAT). Access station 115 may communicate with AMF 220 using an N2 interface 222 and communicate with UPF 235 using an N3 interface 232).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchal et al. (US Publication No. 20220264540) in view of Chen et al. (US Publication No. 20220386226).
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, Panchal teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Panchal further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to determine the application to be used on the mobile device by: receiving requirements for the specific network slice from the mobile device (fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0044, application management server 306 may receive information associated with application 310 (e.g., information used to authenticate application 310, information indicating requirements associated with application 310, an indication of slices application 310 is authorized to use, etc.), and pp0063); and determining the specific network slice based on the requirements (fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0044, application management server 306 may receive information associated with application 310 (e.g., information used to authenticate application 310, information indicating requirements associated with application 310, an indication of slices application 310 is authorized to use, etc.), and pp0063, request particular slice, based on requirements). However, Panchal fails to explicitly teach that the requirement is Generic Slice Templates (GST) requirements.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chen teaches the concept wherein the requirement is Generic Slice Templates (GST) requirements (fig. 1, fig. 3, pp0021, the activation request includes service level information associated with the application. The service level information may include network slicing information associated with the application. The network slicing information may include GSMA Generic Slice Template (GST) and/or Network Slice Type (NEST) information, and pp0080). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Panchal with the teachings of Chen to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably enabling flexible and efficient network slicing supporting various types of communication services in a communication system (Chen, pp0002).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, Panchal teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Panchal further teaches wherein the requirements are received as part of Domain Name Service (DNS) resolution on the default network slice (fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0063, pp0060, application 310 may request to use a default slice or may not request a specific slice and may indicate a particular domain name network (DNN), pp0066, application 310 may pass the identifier of the recommended slice, the slice key, and DNN to modem 304 via operating system 302, as shown by arrows 616 and 618 of FIG. 6. Modem 304 may route traffic to UPF 235-2 in core network 150 using the recommended slice). However, Panchal fails to explicitly teach that the requirement is GST requirements.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chen teaches the concept wherein the requirement is GST requirements (fig. 1, fig. 3, pp0021, the activation request includes service level information associated with the application. The service level information may include network slicing information associated with the application. The network slicing information may include GSMA Generic Slice Template (GST) and/or Network Slice Type (NEST) information, and pp0080). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Panchal with the teachings of Chen to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably enabling flexible and efficient network slicing supporting various types of communication services in a communication system (Chen, pp0002).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, Panchal teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Panchal further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to receive User Route Selection Policy (URSP) (fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0056, management server 306 may receive a message from application 310 indicating whether the recommended slices are on the list of allowed slices on the URSP, and pp0050) as part of the DNS resolution on the default network slice (fig. 2, fig. 3, pp0063, pp0060, application 310 may request to use a default slice or may not request a specific slice and may indicate a particular domain name network (DNN), and pp0066).
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panchal et al. (US Publication No. 20220264540) in view of Chan et al. (US Publication No. 20210068044).
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, Panchal teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, Panchal fails to teach wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to: detecting a termination of use of the application on the mobile device; and terminating a communication session on the specific network slice for the mobile device upon detecting the termination of use of the application on the mobile device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Chan teaches the concept wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to: detecting a termination of use of the application on the mobile device (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 9, S902, detect application deactivated); and terminating a communication session on the specific network slice for the mobile device upon detecting the termination of use of the application on the mobile device (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 9, S916, release network slice associated with the deactivated application). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Panchal with the teachings of Chan to achieve the goal of efficiently providing a robust way for smartphones to manage network slicing configuration and efficient power consumption (Chan, pp0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645