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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 25, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 02, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jagannatha et al. (hereinafter “Jagannatha”, US 2023/0292230) as cited in IDS dated June 25, 2025.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Jagannatha discloses a device (i.e., a Fixed Wireless Access device (FWA) 800 as shown in Fig. 8) configured to route outgoing data traffic generated in a network, a method, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions (i.e., memory/storage space 804 for storing data and machine-readable instructions as described in paragraph 0071), that when executed by a processor (i.e., a processor 802), cause the processor to perform actions, comprising:
receive, from a first client device on the network, a request to transmit data packets associated with a service to a service provider located external of the network (i.e., FWA 108 receives a connection request along with one of the mapped tokens from device 106 as described in paragraph 0022, and also as shown in Fig. 1);
obtain, from the request, a first tag being indicative of a first quality of service (QOS) category requested by the service (i.e., the tokens in the connection request are mapped to the corresponding traffic descriptors (TDs), User Equipment Route Selection Policy (URSP) as described in paragraphs 0014, 0022, and 0030-0032);
determine, based on the first tag, a network slice to be assigned for the service (i.e., FWA 108 uses the tokens and the URSP to identify the network slices as described in paragraphs 0037-0038);
establish, via a wireless network, a session corresponding to the network slice between the first client device and the service provider (i.e., establishing a connection based on the selected network slices as described in paragraphs 0037-0038); and
facilitate transmission of the data packets associated with the service on the session (i.e., forwarding the data to the identified network slices as described in paragraphs 0017, and 0037-0038).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Jagannatha discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Jagannatha also discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
receive, from the first client device, a first tagging table configured by the first client device, the first tagging table defining a set of first tags to represent one or more QoS categories (i.e., the MAC address can be used to look up the corresponding TD as described in paragraphs 0019-0022);
associate, based on the one or more QoS categories, the set of first tags with corresponding network slices (i.e., using a lookup table that maps a set of tokens to different TDs as described in paragraphs 0019-0022); and
generate, in a database, a first mapping table associated with the first client device, the first mapping table including the set of first tags and the corresponding network slices (i.e., the look table that maps a set of tokens to different TDs as described in paragraphs 0019-0022).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Jagannatha discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Jagannatha also discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
obtain, from the request, an identification of the first client device (i.e., obtaining the MAC address as described in paragraph 0019);
retrieve, from the database and based on the identification, the first mapping table (i.e., a database that maps the MAC address to the TD as described in paragraphs 0019-0022); and
determine, based on the first mapping table and the first tag, the network slice (i.e., identifying the network slice based on the MAC address and the corresponding TD as described in paragraphs 0019-0022).
Regarding claims 4, and 11, Jagannatha discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Jagannatha also discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
receive, from a second client device on the network, a second tagging table configured by the second client device, the second tagging table defining a set of second tags to represent the one or more QoS categories (i.e., the MAC address can be used to look up the corresponding TD as described in paragraphs 0019-0022. It is also noted that the user device 106 includes 106-1 through 106-3 as shown in Fig. 1);
associate, based on the one or more QoS categories, the set of second tags with corresponding network slices (i.e., using a lookup table that maps a set of tokens to different TDs as described in paragraphs 0019-0022); and
generate, in the database, a second mapping table associated with the second client device, the second mapping table including the set of second tags and the corresponding network slices, wherein the set of second tags are different from the set of the first tags (i.e., the look table that maps a set of tokens to different TDs as described in paragraphs 0019-0022. It is also noted that the user device 106 includes 106-1 through 106-3 as shown in Fig. 1).
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) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannatha in view of Cai et al. (hereinafter “Cai”, US 2020/0169951).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Jagannatha discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Cai discloses enhanced interfaces for network slice selection based on charging rules. Cai also discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
configure, in a database, a mapping table defining a set of tags to represent one or more QoS categories (i.e., determining, and acquiring the charging policy for the UE 90 as described in paragraph 0068. The charging policy is associated with QoS as described in paragraphs 0057 and 0064); and
transmit the mapping table to the first client device (i.e., the response to the UE 908 including a network slice ID, charging rule ID indicating a charging rule and rate for usages and services requested in the attach request as described in paragraphs 0068-0070, and 0076),
wherein the first client device, based on the first QoS category requested by the service, tags the data packets associated with the service using the first tag according to the mapping table (i.e., the UE 908 re-evaluates and re-requests a new network slice as described in paragraphs 0068-0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the UE to establish a connection with a network that could provide with optimal services.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jagannatha in view of Cai and further in view of Prabhakar et al. (hereinafter “Prabhakar”, US 2025/0063479).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Jagannatha and Cai disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Prabhakar discloses technologies for intelligent slice prioritization. Prabhakar also discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
configure, in the database, a translation table that translates the set of tags to a set of network slices (i.e., the UE requests including a NSSAI as described in paragraph 0131, and a S-NSSAI corresponds to a QoS as described in paragraph 0065), respectively;
configure, in the database, a precedence order with respect to the set of network slices, the precedence order indicating an order of secondary network slices to be used when a first network slice is unavailable (i.e., the UE populates or updates the slice-priority network configuration database as described in paragraphs 0117, and 0131); and
transmit the translation table and the precedence order to the first client device (i.e., UE receives slice prioritization as described in paragraph 0061, 0064-0066, and 0131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the operator to prioritize specific resources, and tailor solutions to different applications.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Jagannatha, Cai and Prabhakar disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Prabhakar also discloses wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, further cause the processor to:
determine that the network slice corresponding to the first QoS category is unavailable (i.e., the requested S-NSSAI is rejected as described in paragraph 0067);
determine, based on the precedent order, a secondary network slice from the set of network slices (i.e., the allowed NSSAI is updated as described in paragraphs 0066-0067);
assign the secondary network slice for the service (i.e., the re-selection procedure is based on slice-priority network configuration as described in paragraph 0047); and
route the data packets to the secondary network slice to be sent to the service provider (i.e., initiating a new PDU session based on the re-selection as described in paragraphs 0047-0048, and 0061-0066).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached on (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644