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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 19 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 19 August 2026), Claims 1-20 are pending.
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 19 August 2026), Claims 1, 10, and 17 are amended and said amendments are narrowing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 3, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Gundavelli, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 3, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli et al. (US 20230049321 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Gundavelli”) in view of Paczkowski et al. (US 11039359 B1; hereinafter referred to as “Paczkowski”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 2, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 1.
Gundavelli further discloses the parameters include Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice (¶43, Gundavelli discloses that Quality of Service (QoS) is used to facilitate transfer of data traffic between the UE and a network).
Regarding Claim 4, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 2.
Gundavelli further discloses wherein identifying the visited network comprises identifying the visited network based on a discovery of the visited network by a user device in communication with the wireless network (¶66 & Fig. 3B (318), Gundavelli discloses identifying, by the UE, at least one Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN) by receiving, by the UE, a registration accept where the registration accept indicates a vPLMN capable of supporting a preferred network slice type. Here, the registration accept message indicates information previously unknown to the UE thus the vPLMN is discovered via reception of this message).
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 10, Gundavelli discloses a computing apparatus comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media (¶98-106 & Fig. 7, Gundavelli discloses a computing device comprising storage 706 and memory elements 704);
one or more processors operatively coupled with the one or more computer readable storage media (¶98-106 & Fig. 7, Gundavelli discloses the computing device further comprising processors 702 coupled to the storage 706 and the memory elements 704); 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 (¶100-101 & Fig. 7, Gundavelli discloses software and/or instructions stored on the memory elements 704 that, when executed by the processor 702, cause the computing device to perform a method):
with respect to a wireless network hosting multiple network slices (¶19-28 & Fig. 1 & ¶41, Gundavelli discloses a radio access network (RAN) operated by a Home Public Land Mobile Network (HPLMN) where the hPLMN hosts at least two 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 (¶58-61 & Fig. 3 (304) & ¶2, Gundavelli discloses determining a network slice type of a plurality of network slice types such that the network slice type can be offloaded from a wireless network corresponding to the home PLMN in response to the UE roaming in a visited network of a plurality of visited networks. ¶32, Gundavelli further discloses that the home PLMN is operated by home network operator);
identify a visited network (¶66 & Fig. 3B (318), Gundavelli discloses identifying, by the UE, at least one Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN)) that is operated by a different network operator (¶32, Gundavelli discloses that each vPLMN is operated by a visited network operator where the visited network operator is different from a home network operator) to host the data traffic of the network slice offloaded from the wireless network of the network operator (¶68 & Fig. 3 (330) & ¶43, Gundavelli discloses that each vPLMN is able to host, via network slices, data traffic where the data traffic is offloaded, or handed over, from a wireless network corresponding to a home PLMN to a wireless network corresponding to the vPLMN).
However, Gundavelli does not disclose make an offer to the visited network, via an inter-network interface between the wireless network and the visited network, to host the data traffic of the network slice of the wireless network, wherein the offer comprises parameters for an agreement to offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network; and in response to receiving a response from the visited network accepting the offer, offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network according to the parameters of the agreement to offload the data traffic.
Paczkowski, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches:
make an offer to the visited network (6:11-42 & Fig. 4, Paczkowski discloses making, by a user equipment (UE) 101, an offer to a target wireless network slice 122 by exchanging handover signaling and hardware trust data between the wireless UE 101 and the target wireless network slice 122. Examiner correlates the target wireless network slice 122 to “the visited network”. Examiner correlates handover signaling and hardware trust data to “an offer”), via an inter-network interface between the wireless network and the visited network (3:20-29, Paczkowski discloses a signaling interface), to host the data traffic of the network slice of the wireless network (6:11-42 & Fig. 4, Paczkowski discloses that the handover signaling is to offload the IP data of a session between the wireless UE 101 and the source wireless network slice 121 to IP data of a session between the wireless UE 101 and the target wireless network slice 122),
wherein the offer comprises parameters for an agreement to offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network (6:11-42 & Fig. 4, Paczkowski discloses that the handover signaling and hardware trust data indicate parameters including a QoS level, such as bit-rate or latency, and other parameters, such as content filter-restrictions where the parameters will be used to configured the target wireless network slice 122 such that the source wireless network slice 121 can “offload”, or handover, the IP data); and
in response to receiving a response from the visited network accepting the offer, offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network (6:27-55 & Fig. 4, Paczkowski discloses offloading the IP data corresponding to a session between the wireless UE 101 and the source wireless networks slice 121 to IP data corresponding to a session between the wireless UE 101 and the target wireless network slice 122 in response to receiving, by the wireless UE 101, a response to both handover signaling and hardware trust data from the target wireless network slice 122) according to the parameters of the agreement to offload the data traffic (6:43-55 & Fig. 4, Paczkowski discloses that the IP data exchanged between the wireless UE 101 and the target wireless network slice 122 is exchanged according to a quality of service (QoS) level, such as bit-rate and latency, and additional parameters, such as filter-criteria).
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 Gundavelli by mak[ing] an offer to the visited network, via an inter-network interface between the wireless network and the visited network, to host the data traffic of the network slice of the wireless network where the offer comprises parameters for an agreement to offload the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network and offload[ing] the data traffic of the network slice from the wireless network to the visited network according to the parameters of the agreement to offload the data traffic in response to receiving a response from the visited network accepting the offer as taught by Paczkowski because handover UEs between wireless network slices is rendered more efficient and effective by implementing hardware-trust, internet QoS, or internet restrictions across wireless communication network boundaries (Paczkowski, 1:57-62).
Regarding Claim 13, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Gundavelli further discloses that the visited network comprises a non-cellular network (¶40, Gundavelli discloses that the RAN corresponding to the vPLMN may implement a wireless local area network such as IEEE 802.11. Examiner correlates a network operating according to IEEE 802.11 as a "non-cellular network").
Regarding Claim 15, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Gundavelli 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 (¶58-61 & Fig. 3 (304) & ¶2, Gundavelli discloses determining a network slice type of a plurality of network slice types based upon a priority of network slice types).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Claims 3, 6, 8, 11-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski in further 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 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 8, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the method of operating the wireless network of claim 1.
However, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski does not disclose determining that the data traffic is to be offloaded is based on a traffic volume of the network slice.
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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski by determining that the data traffic is to be offloaded is based on a traffic volume of the network slice as taught by Dauneria because network slices are improved by customizing said network slices to meet server different use cases (Dauneria, ¶2).
Regarding Claim 11, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
Paczkowski, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the parameters include: Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice (6:43-55 & Fig. 4, Paczkowski discloses that the IP data exchanged between the wireless UE 101 and the target wireless network slice 122 is exchanged according to a quality of service (QoS) level, such as bit-rate and latency).
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 Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski by requiring that the parameters include: Quality of Service parameters associated with the network slice as taught by Paczkowski because handover UEs between wireless network slices is rendered more efficient and effective by implementing hardware-trust, internet QoS, or internet restrictions across wireless communication network boundaries (Paczkowski, 1:57-62).
However, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski does not disclose the parameters [further] include: location, number of active subscribers, and cost.
Dauneria, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches that 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 invention to modify Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski by requiring that the parameters [further] include: location, 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 12, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski in further view of Dauneria discloses the computing apparatus of claim 11.
Gundavelli further discloses 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 (¶66 & Fig. 3B (318), Gundavelli discloses identifying, by the UE, at least one Visited Public Land Mobile Network (VPLMN) by receiving, by the UE, a registration accept where the registration accept indicates a vPLMN capable of supporting a preferred network slice type. Here, the registration accept message indicates information previously unknown to the UE thus the vPLMN is discovered via reception of this message).
Regarding Claim 14, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski does not disclose 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.
Dauneria, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski 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 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.
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 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski in further 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, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski discloses the computing apparatus of claim 10.
However, Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski 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 Gundavelli in view of Paczkowski 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
Prosecution Insights