DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
1a. This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 02/05/2026. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions.
The objection of the abstract is maintained.
Objection
2. The Abstract is objected to because an abstract language should be clear and concise and should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “This disclosure describes.” MPEP 608.01(b). The language “As described herein a user device assigns a tag..” can be implied.
2. Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are amended.
Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 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.
4a. Claims 1-4, 10, 13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz et al. (hereinafter “Munoz” et al. (hereinafter “Munoz”) (WO 2022199867 A1) in view of Opsenica et al. (hereinafter “Opsenica”) (WO 2017/063708 A1), and further in view of Boyapalleet al. (hereinafter “Boyapalle”) (US 20210385683 A1) and in view of Xing et al. (hereinafter “Xing”) (US 11570652 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Munoz discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at a user device, information about network traffic that is untagged by an application of the user device (untagged data about a network traffic is being t5randferred to a node ( the node is equated to user device), Munoz, claim 5);
identifying, by the user device, within the information about the network traffic, a set of attribute values associated with the network traffic (VXLAN parameters of tunneling traffic are identified, Munoz, page 11, the paragraph before the last one, starting with In some examples, the tunneling traffic comprises VLAN tunneling..);
assigning, based on the set of attribute values and based on configuration data stored on the user device, a tag to the network traffic (procedure to tag a network traffic, using a Tag-ID to tag a network traffic, where the traffic network is given a tag ID and where the tag of the tunneling traffic is configured with the parameters of DNS Traffic and UE-ID, Munoz, page 14, paragraph 6, in step 707, the UE; in addition, the tag of the tunneling traffic is configured with the parameter of DNS Traffic and UE-ID; and the parameters such as event ID = DNS traffic and UE ID have values corresponding to the Tag-ID values , (See Munoz, Page 17, last four paragraphs starting with Step 703…);
Munoz does not disclose determining a network slice associated with the tag, transmitting the network traffic to an access point over the network slice associated with the tag.
Opsenica discloses determining a network slice associated with the tag (a network slice is identified by network slice capacities tags associated with respective network slice, Opsenica, page 4 paragraph 6, starting In some embodiments the step of receiving..); transmitting the network traffic to an access point over the network slice associated with the tag ( sending application traffic by an access point anchoring a network slice that is associated with a tag, Opsenica, page 8, paragraphs 7-9 , starting Stage 405 show….. ).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Opsenica’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently transfer a data traffic to a destination by using an access point associated with a network slice with a tag, process that transfers the data effectively.
Munoz in view of Opsenica do not disclose receiving, at the user device, further network traffic that is tagged by an application of the user device; wherein the network slice is one of a plurality of network slices; transmitting the further network traffic over a further network slice of the plurality of network slices based on a tag of the further network traffic.
Boyapalle discloses receiving, at the user device, further network traffic that is tagged by an application of the user device (receiving at a network device a packet tagged to the network device the communicating through a network traffic a specific network slice based on tags , using DSCP code that is associated with application, Boyapalle, [0094]- [0095]; DSCP code associated with application is disclosed in [0020]); wherein the network slice is one of a plurality of network slices (a specific network slice is based on tags , Boyapalle, [0095]). ; transmitting the further network traffic over a further network slice of the plurality of network slices based on a tag of the further network traffic ( communicating through a network traffic a specific network slice based on tags , Boyapalle, [0095]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Boyapalle’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently transfer network slice efficiently by using a tag associated with the network slice for doing so.
Munoz in view of Opsenica and in view of Boyapalle do not disclose wherein each network slice of the plurality of network slices is assigned a different bandwidth part of an access network.
Xing discloses wherein each network slice of the plurality of network slices is assigned a different bandwidth part of an access network ( different network slices are allocated to different bandwidth parts, Xing, column 8, lines 14-25).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Xing’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings and in view of Boyapalle’ s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently transfer network slice efficiently by allocating each network slice to a specific network bandwidth.
Regarding claim 2, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the tag is assigned based at least in part on a destination device associated with the network traffic ( destination IP address associated with tunneling traffic Munoz, page 11 paragraph 5 starting with In some examples, the tunneling traffic …)).
Regarding claim 3, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the tag is assigned based at least in part on a software application that generated the network traffic ( a tag is allocated to a tunneling traffic that is generated by one or more applications, Munoz, page 9 paragraph 3 starting with In some examples, the analytic..).
Regarding claim 4, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the tag is determined using one or more machine learning models ( machine learning algorithm being used for, Munoz, page 26 , paragraph starting with In step 1021).
Regarding claim 10, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose a mobile device comprising: one or more processors (a processor is disclosed, Munoz, page 28, first full paragraph starting with Fig. 12…) ; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (a processor executing program code stored in a memory, Munoz, page 28, 4th full paragraph starting with Fig. 12); in addition, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 13, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the mobile device of claim 10, wherein the set of attribute values comprises one or more of a software application from which the network traffic originated or a destination of the network traffic ( one of the parameters of the traffic is destination IP address , Nunoz, page 11, paragraph 6 starting with In some example, the tunneling traffic comprises L2TP….))
Regarding claim 17, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions (a memory is disclosed, Munoz, page 28, 4th full paragraph starting with Fig. 12) that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (a processor executing program code stored in a memory, Munoz, page 28, 4th full paragraph starting with Fig. 12); in addition , claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the information about the network traffic comprises information about at least one of an application that generated the network traffic or a destination of the network traffic ( one of the parameters of the traffic is destination IP address , Nunoz, page 11, paragraph 6 starting with In some example, the tunneling traffic comprises L2TP….)).
4b. Claims 5, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz, in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, and further in view of Nagarkar et al. (US 10,764,333 B2).
Regarding claim 5, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the method of claim 4.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein the tag is determined based on a degree of similarity between the information about the network traffic and second information about second network traffic associated with the tag in the configuration data.
Nagarkar discloses wherein the tag is determined based on a degree of similarity between the information about the network traffic and second information about second network traffic associated with the tag in the configuration data ( tag being determined using a configuration data in a shared network where a first local area network shares the tag with a second shared network (Nagarkar, Claim 2)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings . One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently determine how closed the configuration of a first network is with the configuration of a second network by determining that a configuration tag belongs to the first network and the second network.
Regarding claim 14, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the mobile device of claim 10.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein the operations further comprise providing an indication of the tag and information about network traffic to at least one second computing device.
Nagarkar discloses wherein the operations further comprise providing an indication of the tag and information about network traffic to at least one second computing device ( tag being determined using a configuration data in a shared network where a first local area network shares the tag with a second shared network data (by determining tag is associated communication between a first local area network and a second shared network a hint is also given about the tag and the information about a second computing device (Nagarkar, Claim 2)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently determine that a configuration tag belongs to a first network and a second network.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently determine how closed the configuration of a first network is with the configuration of a second network by determining that a configuration tag belongs to the first network and the second network.
Regarding claim 19, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein the tag is assigned using one or more machine learning models based on a degree of similarity between the information about the network traffic and second information about second network traffic associated with the tag in the configuration data.
Nagarkar discloses wherein the tag is assigned using one or more machine learning models ( machine learning being used to perform operation algorithm being used to perform analysis, column 16 , lines 59-66-) based on a degree of similarity between the information about the network traffic and second information about second network traffic associated with the tag in the configuration data ( tag being determined using a configuration data in a shared network where a first local area network shares the tag with a second shared network data (Nagarkar, Claim 2)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently determine how closed the configuration of a first network is with the configuration of a second network by determining that a configuration tag belongs to the first network and the second network.
4c. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, and further in view of in view of Bliss et al. (hereinafter “Bliss”) (CN 107436594 A).
Regarding claim 6, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the method of claim 1.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein updated configuration data is generated to include the set of attribute values and the tag.
Bliss discloses wherein updated configuration data is generated to include the set of attribute values and the tag ( updated configuration is updated with metadata attribute and tag value (Bliss, page 10 , first paragraph starting with configuration data 418 to reflect the metadata…..)) .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bliss’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently update a configuration by including in the configuration parameters metadata attributes and tag value that effectively update the configuration.
4d. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, in view of Bliss, and further in view of Nagarkar.
Regarding claim 7, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, Xing, and Bliss disclose the method of claim 6.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle in view of Xing and in view of Bliss do not disclose wherein the updated configuration data is provided to at least one second computing device.
Nagarkar discloses wherein the updated configuration data is provided to at least one second computing device ( configuration data being updated by routing a configuration to a type of device based on information that is in configuration data, Nagarkar, column 18, lines 4-18) in any type of device includes second computer device).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently determine where to update a configuration by using the device type to determine that the configuration belongs to that kind of device.
Regarding claim 8, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, Xing, Bliss, and Nagarkar disclose the method of claim 7.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle in view of Xing and in view of Bliss do not disclose wherein the at least one second computing device comprises a second user device, wherein the updated configuration data is used by the second user device to assign a tag to second network traffic.
Nagarkar discloses wherein the at least one second computing device comprises a second user device, wherein the updated configuration data is used by the second user device to assign a tag to second network traffic ( configuration update for IoT operation of an IoT device being implemented by a network device using a command that include a tag associated with IoT operations Nagarkar, column 18, lines 35-51)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings and in view of Bliss’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently update a configuration by using a command to send the configuration that has a tag associated with the IoT device.
Regarding claim 9, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, Xing, Bliss, and Nagarkar disclose the method of claim 7.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle in view of Xing and in view of Bliss do not disclose wherein the at least one second computing device comprises a central server, and the updated configuration data is consolidated into a common configuration data repository.
Nagarkar discloses wherein the at least one second computing device comprises a central server ( a routing platform 102 comprise DNS server, Nagarkar, column 10, lines 15-24); the routing platform 102 is broadly equated to the second computer device and DNS server is broadly equated to a central server), and the updated configuration data is consolidated into a common configuration data repository ( a routing platform device is storing configuration data for network devices (updated configuration data is also stored), Nagarkar, column 13, lines 3-21)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Nagarkar’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings in view of Xing’s teachings and in view of Bliss’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently determine that a configuration tag belongs to a first network and a second network.
4e. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, and further in view of Polaganga (US 2024/0292406 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Munoz , Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing disclose the mobile device of claim 10.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein the access point is implemented in a base station that manages a fixed wireless access (FWA) network in communication with the mobile device.
Polaganga discloses wherein the access point is implemented in a base station that manages a fixed wireless access (FWA) network in communication with the mobile device (base station scheduling fixed wireless access network sending video stream to a mobile device (Polaganga, [0018])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Polaganga’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently schedule the transfer of a video stream to a mobile device by using a fixed wireless access for scheduling the transfer of video streams.
4f. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, in view of Polaganga, and further in view of Patel (US 2023/0291607 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, Xing, and Palaganga disclose the mobile device of claim 11.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle in view of Xing and in view of Palaganga do not disclose wherein the FWA network is partitioned into a number of network slices that includes the network slice.
Patel discloses wherein the FWA network is partitioned into a number of network slices that includes the network slice ( FWA is forwarded packets for devices to appropriate network slices (Patel, [0021];[0022])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Patel’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings in view of Xing’s teachings and in view of Polaganga’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently forward a packet to the proper device by using FWA network to forward the packet to the appropriate device.
4g. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz, in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, in view of Nagarkar, and further in view of Bliss.
Regarding claim 15, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, Xing, and Nagarkar disclose the mobile device of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise receiving, from the at least one second computing device (two computers in different networks are communicating via tunneling ( the receiving computer is a the second computer, Munoz, page 3 paragraph 3 starting with The result is that virtual link in different networks…).
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle in view of Xing and in view of Nagarkar do not disclose updated configuration data that includes the indication of the tag and the information about network traffic.
Bliss discloses updated configuration data that includes the indication of the tag and the information about network traffic ( updated configuration is updated with metadata attribute and tag value (Bliss, page 10 , first paragraph starting with configuration data 418 to reflect the metadata…..)) .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bliss’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings in view of Xing’s teachings and in view of Nagarkar’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently update a configuration by including in the configuration parameters metadata attribute and tag value that effectively update the configuration.
4h. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Opsenica, Boyapalle, in view of Xing, and further in view of Salkintzis (WO 2022/207089 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Munoz, Opsenica, Boyapalle, and Xing, disclose the mobile device of claim 10.
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein the network slice is optimized for a type or category of network traffic.
Salkintzis discloses wherein the network slice is optimized for a type or category of network traffic ( network slice is optimized for a type of traffic (Salkintzis, [0054])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Salkintzis’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently optimize a network slice by optimizing the network slice by type.
Regarding claim 20, Munoz and Opsenica Boyapalle, and Xing, disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 17 wherein the tag is assigned based on the network traffic being of the category of network traffic ( a tag is allocated to a tunneling traffic type, Munoz, page 9 paragraph 3 starting with In some examples, the analytic..).
Munoz in view of Opsenica in view of Boyapalle and in view of Xing do not disclose wherein the network slice is optimized for a category of network traffic.
Salkintzis discloses wherein the network slice is optimized for a category of network traffic ( network slice is optimized for a type of traffic (Salkintzis, [0054])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Salkintzis’s teachings with Munoz’s teachings in view of Opsenica’s teachings in view of Boyapalle’s teachings and in view of Xing’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently optimize a network slice by optimizing the network slice by type.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. 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.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/DAVID R LAZARO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights