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 09 January 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 09 January 2024. The submission 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, received on 09 January 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claim recites a contingent limitation, namely “when the visited network accepts the offer, offloading the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network”. Examiner reminds Applicant that "[the] broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met", See MPEP 2111.04 and See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). Here, the contingent limitation, (i.e. “when the visited network accepts the offer”) is not a condition that is required to occur, therefore the entire limitation is not required to occur. Given that the limitation is not required to occur, said limitation does not possess patentable weight. Examiner has, in the interest of compact prosecution, treated the limitation. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “in response to the visited networkaccepting the offer, offloading the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “location”, “duration”, “number of active subscribers”, and “cost”. Here, each term requires an indefinite article, “a”, in accordance with antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending, when appropriate, to “a location”, “a duration”, “a number of active subscribers”, and “a cost”. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Note
Examiner has included two distinct prior art rejections based on Dauneria et al. (US 20230379775 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Dauneria”) and Krishnan et al. (US 20220046507 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Krishnan”) respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dauneria et al. (US 20230379775 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Dauneria”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 2, Dauneria discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 1.
Dauneria further discloses the parameters include Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice (¶75, Dauneria discloses that the triggering event may include a restriction on the amount of data that can be consumed by a UE while connected to the network slice, a restriction on the number of UEs that can be connected to the network slice, or a restriction on the number of PDU sessions that can be active on the network slice at any one time. Here, each restriction would improve the quality of service of the corresponding network slice on which said restriction was implemented).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 8, Dauneria discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 1.
Dauneria further discloses wherein determining that the data traffic is to be offloaded is based on a traffic volume of the network slice (¶75, Dauneria discloses that the determination to hand over a PDU session from a source network slice to a target network slice can be based upon a restriction on the source target network slice that restricts an amount of data that can be consumed by a UE while connected to the network slice).
Regarding Claim 10, Dauneria discloses a computing apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media (¶119-120 & Fig. 8, Dauneria discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising memory 804);
one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (¶119-120 & Fig. 8, Dauneria discloses the UE further comprising processor(s) 802 coupled to the memory 804); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least (¶119-120 & Fig. 8, Dauneria discloses the UE further comprising software stored on the memory for execution by the processor(s) 802 to cause the UE to perform a method):
with respect to a wireless network hosting multiple network slices (¶65, Dauneria discloses that each network operator may operate at least one network slice) :
determine that data traffic of a network slice of the multiple network slices is to be offloaded from the wireless network to another network (¶88 & Fig. 4A (408) & ¶4, Dauneria discloses determining a trigger for a slice handover from a source network slice to a target network slice);
identify a visited network to host the data traffic of the network slice (¶90 & Fig. 4A (412), Dauneria discloses identifying a target network slice where the target network slice will host a transferred Packet Date Unit (PDU) session once hosted by the source network slice);
make an offer to the visited network based on a negotiation framework to host the data traffic of the network slice of the wireless network (¶91 & Fig. 4A (418), Dauneria discloses triggering a service Npcf_PolicyAuthorizationUpdate to request a Policy and Control Function (PCF) to move the PDU session on the source network slice to the target network slice),
wherein the negotiation framework comprises parameters for an agreement to offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network (¶91-92, Dauneria discloses that the following parameters, S-NSSAI of the target network slice and the lifetime, are conveyed during the exchange of signaling to move the PDU session from the source network slice to the target network slice); and
when the visited network accepts the offer, offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network (¶94 & Fig. 4A (428), Dauneria discloses moving the PDU session from the source network slice to the target network slice in response to a message transmitted, by the PCF to the Session Management Function (SMF), to update the PDU session).
Regarding Claim 11, Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Dauneria discloses that the parameters include:
Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice (¶75, Dauneria discloses that the triggering event may include a restriction on the amount of data that can be consumed by a UE while connected to the network slice, a restriction on the number of UEs that can be connected to the network slice, or a restriction on the number of PDU sessions that can be active on the network slice at any one time. Here, each restriction would improve the quality of service of the corresponding network slice on which said restriction was implemented),
location (¶78 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a location parameter),
duration (¶78 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a time-based parameter, such as a timer),
number of active subscribers (¶75 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a number of user equipments (UEs) that can be connected to the slice), and
cost (¶78 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a payment-based parameter, such as a slice having a cheaper cost).
Regarding Claim 12, Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 11.
Dauneria further discloses wherein to identify the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to identify the visited network based on a discovery of the visited network by a user device in communication with the wireless network (¶90 & Fig. 4A (412), Dauneria discloses identifying a target network slice based upon an already identified network slice in the subscription profile of the UE or a network slice discovered based upon a current location of the UE).
Regarding Claim 14, Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Dauneria further discloses the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to identify a plurality of visited networks (¶90 & Fig. 4A (412), Dauneria discloses identifying a target network slice based upon an already identified network slice in the subscription profile of the UE or a network slice discovered based upon a current location of the UE) and select the visited network from among the plurality of visited networks based on a capacity of the visited network relative to the network slice to be offloaded (¶75, Dauneria discloses that the target network slice can be selected based upon whether the target network slice has or does not have a restriction on the amount of data that can be consumed by the UE on the source network slice).
Regarding Claim 15, Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Dauneria further discloses wherein to determine that the data traffic is to be offloaded, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to determine that the data traffic of the network slice is to be offloaded based on a priority of the network slice (¶8 & ¶75 & ¶78, Dauneria discloses that the PDU session of the source network slice is re-established on the target network slice based upon location, time, cost, operator, and other restrictions. Here, a target network slice having a location closer to the UE would have a “higher priority” than the source network slice having a location that is located at a further distance. A similar argument can be made for each of the slice handover triggering events).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Claims 1-2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krishnan et al. (US 20220046507 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Krishnan”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 2, Krishnan discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 1.
Krishnan discloses the parameters include Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice (¶12 & ¶35, Krishnan discloses that the parameters associated with mobility load balancing include parameters associated with reduction of load across congested cells, reduction of latency, and network energy savings).
Regarding Claim 10, Krishnan discloses a computing apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media (¶124 & Fig. 8, Krishnan discloses memory 830);
one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (¶124-134 & Fig. 8, Krishnan discloses the device further comprising a processor 840 operatively coupled to the memory 830 via a bus 850); and
program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media that, when executed by the one or more processors, direct the computing apparatus to at least (¶124-134 & Fig. 8, Krishnan discloses the device further comprising code 835 stored on the memory 830 for execution by the processor 840 to cause the device 805 to perform a method):
with respect to a wireless network hosting multiple network slices:
determine that data traffic of a network slice of the multiple network slices is to be offloaded from the wireless network to another network (¶151 & Fig. 12 (1205), Krishnan discloses determining that a load associated with a network slice of a first base station is to be offloaded by determining a load balancing adjustment that adjusts the load corresponding to the first network slice to be handed over from the first base station to a second base station. Examiner correlates the load associated with a network slice of the first base station to "data traffic of a network slice". Examiner correlates the first base station to "the wireless network". Examiner correlates the second base station to "another network");
identify a visited network to host the data traffic of the network slice (¶151 & Fig. 12 (1205), Krishnan discloses determining a second base station where the second base station will host the offloaded, or handed over, load corresponding to the slice of the first base station. Examiner correlates the second base station to "a visited network");
make an offer to the visited network based on a negotiation framework to host the data traffic of the network slice of the wireless network (¶154 & Fig. 12 (1220) & ¶88 & Fig. 3 (310), Krishnan discloses transmitting a mobility change request based upon one or more parameters to be exchanged, or negotiated, between the first base station and the second base station where the second base station will host the load in the network slice of the second base station. Examiner correlates the second base station to "the visited network". Examiner correlates the exchange of a mobile change request and a mobility change response to “a negotiation framework”),
wherein the negotiation framework comprises parameters for an agreement to offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network (¶153-154 & Fig. 12 (1215->1220), Krishnan discloses that the one or more parameters are for the conditional handover of the load of the network slice of the first base station to the load to the network slice of the second base station); and
when the visited network accepts the offer, offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network (¶93-94 & Fig. 3 (320->330->340), Krishnan discloses when the second base station transmits the mobility change acknowledgment, the load is offloaded, or handed over, from the network slice of the first base station to the network slice of the second base station).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauneria in view of Roy et al. (US 20240397390 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Roy”).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 13, Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Dauneria does not disclose that the visited network comprises a non-cellular network.
Roy, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the visited network comprises a non-cellular network (¶84-86 & Fig. 2, Roy discloses handing over a PDU session corresponding to a network slice from a 3GPP-based network to a non-3GPP-based network. Examiner correlates non-3gpp to non-cellular).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dauneria by requiring that the visited network comprises a non-cellular network as taught by Roy because performing network slice admission control for a Packet Date Unit (PDU) session is improved by maintaining a correct count of PDU sessions per access type when PDU sessions are handed over from one access type, such as 3GPP-based access type, to another access type, such as non-3gpp-based (Roy, ¶34-35).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauneria in view of Nair et al. (US 20210321303 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Nair”).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 16, Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Dauneria does not disclose wherein to make the offer to the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to transmit the offer to the visited network via an n32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of the wireless network and the SEPP of the visited network.
Nair, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to make the offer to the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to transmit the offer to the visited network via an n32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of the wireless network and the SEPP of the visited network (¶91-92 & Fig. 4 (440 & 442), Nair discloses sending an N32 Security Related Parameters Exchange message over an N32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN A) and a SEP of PLMN B. Examiner correlates the N32 Security Related Parameters Exchange to “the offer”. Examiner correlates the PLMN A to “the wireless network”. Examiner correlates PLMN B to “the visited network”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dauneria by transmitting the offer to the visited network via an n32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of the wireless network and the SEPP of the visited network as taught by Nair because automated SLA management improves the roaming experience for users when performing inter-PLMN roaming (Nair, ¶51).
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Dauneria et al. (US 20230379775 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Dauneria”).
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 11, Krishnan discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Krishnan discloses that the parameters include:
Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice (¶12 & ¶35, Krishnan discloses that the parameters associated with mobility load balancing include parameters associated with reduction of load across congested cells, reduction of latency, and network energy savings).
However, Krishnan does not disclose wherein the parameters [further] include: location, duration, number of active subscribers, and cost.
Dauneria, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the parameters [further] include:
location (¶78 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a location parameter),
duration (¶78 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a time-based parameter, such as a timer),
number of active subscribers (¶75 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a number of user equipments (UEs) that can be connected to the slice), and
cost (¶78 & ¶8, Dauneria discloses a slice-based handover being based upon a payment-based parameter, such as a slice having a cheaper cost).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krishnan by requiring that the parameters [further] include: location, duration, number of active subscribers, and cost as taught by Dauneria because network slices are improved by customizing said network slices to meet server different use cases (Dauneria, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 11.
Claims 4-6, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Tischler et al. (US 20250212076 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Tischler”).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 12, Krishnan discloses the computing apparatus of claim 11.
However, Krishnan does not disclose wherein to identify the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to identify the visited network based on a discovery of the visited network by a user device in communication with the wireless network.
Tischler, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to identify the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to identify the visited network based on a discovery of the visited network by a user device in communication with the wireless network (¶50 & Fig. 4 (402) & ¶59, Tischler discloses identifying, or discovering, at least a base station of said one or more base stations based upon a reception of a broadcast indicating capacity information of corresponding base station that transmitted the broadcast).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krishnan by identify[ing] the visited network based on a discovery of the visited network by a user device in communication with the wireless network as taught by Tischler because handover is improved by determining, prior to handover, whether the target base station has adequate capacity for the handover or roaming operation (Tischler, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 13, Krishnan in view of Tischler discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Krishnan further discloses the visited network comprises a non-cellular network (¶197, Krishnan discloses that the second base station may be a IEEE 802.11, Wi-Fi, system).
Regarding Claim 14, Krishnan discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Krishnan does not disclose wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to identify a plurality of visited networks and select the visited network from among the plurality of visited networks based on a capacity of the visited network relative to the network slice to be offloaded.
Tischler, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to identify a plurality of visited networks (¶50 & Fig. 4 (402) & ¶59, Tischler discloses identifying at least a base station of said one or more base stations based upon a reception of a broadcast indicating capacity information of corresponding base station that transmitted the broadcast) and select the visited network from among the plurality of visited networks based on a capacity of the visited network relative to the network slice to be offloaded (¶53 & Fig. 4 (402) & ¶59, Tischler discloses not overriding the roaming or handover request based in at least in part on when the capacity information indicates that the capacity is adequate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krishnan by requiring that the program instructions further direct the computing apparatus to identify a plurality of visited networks and select the visited network from among the plurality of visited networks based on a capacity of the visited network relative to the network slice to be offloaded as taught by Tischler because handover is improved by determining, prior to handover, whether the target base station has adequate capacity for the handover or roaming operation (Tischler, ¶3).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Li et al. (US 20240251313 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 15, Krishnan discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Krishnan does not disclose wherein to determine that the data traffic is to be offloaded, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to determine that the data traffic of the network slice is to be offloaded based on a priority of the network slice.
Li, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to determine that the data traffic is to be offloaded, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to determine that the data traffic of the network slice is to be offloaded based on a priority of the network slice (¶18 & Fig. 1B (135), Li discloses determining that the emergency call data should be offloaded from a private core network to a core network that supports emergency services based upon the ability to support emergency services. Examiner correlates a core network to "a network slice". Examiner correlates emergency call data to "data traffic". Examiner correlates the ability to support emergency services as a form of priority).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krishnan by determining that the data traffic of the network slice is to be offloaded based on a priority of the network slice as taught by Li because emergency services are improved by enabling the UE to determine which core networks actually support emergency services prior to offloading the emergency call data (Li, ¶8-10).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Vrzic et al. (US 20170086118 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Vrzic”).
Regarding Claim 8, Krishnan discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 1.
However, Krishnan does not disclose wherein determining that the data traffic is to be offloaded is based on a traffic volume of the network slice.
Vrzic, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining that the data traffic is to be offloaded is based on a traffic volume of the network slice (¶67 & Fig. 9 (910) & ¶7, Vrzic discloses determining a load of a an initial slice is to be offloaded to a target slice in response to a slice reselection triggering event, a load balancing event, having occurred).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krishnan by determining that the data traffic is to be offloaded is based on a traffic volume of the network slice as taught by Vrzic because slice reselection to a target slice operated by a different network operator is improved by enabling the UE to determine that the target slice has sufficient resources (Vrzic, ¶8).
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnan in view of Nair et al. (US 20210321303 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Nair”).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 16, Krishnan discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Krishnan does not disclose wherein to make the offer to the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to transmit the offer to the visited network via an n32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of the wireless network and the SEPP of the visited network.
Nair, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein to make the offer to the visited network, the program instructions direct the computing apparatus to transmit the offer to the visited network via an n32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of the wireless network and the SEPP of the visited network (¶91-92 & Fig. 4 (440 & 442), Nair discloses sending an N32 Security Related Parameters Exchange message over an N32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of a first Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN A) and a SEP of PLMN B. Examiner correlates the N32 Security Related Parameters Exchange to “the offer”. Examiner correlates the PLMN A to “the wireless network”. Examiner correlates PLMN B to “the visited network”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Krishnan by transmitting the offer to the visited network via an n32 interface between a Security Edge Protection Proxy (SEPP) of the wireless network and the SEPP of the visited network as taught by Nair because automated SLA management improves the roaming experience for users when performing inter-PLMN roaming (Nair, ¶51).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474