Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/413,656

NETWORK SLICE PRIORIZATION FOR IMS APPLICATION SERVERS

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 16, 2024
Examiner
AHMED, ABDULLAHI
Art Unit
2475
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
T-Mobile Innovations LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
87%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
434 granted / 509 resolved
+27.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +2% lift
Without
With
+1.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
537
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.6%
+6.6% vs TC avg
§102
26.3%
-13.7% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 509 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . This action is in response to the application filed on 16 January 2024. Claims 1-20 are under examination. Claim Objections Claims 1, 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8 and 14 reads “one or more IMS”. Claims include abbreviation that is not defined in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US Publication 2024/0414637) in view of Cai et al. (US Publication 2021/0021647). With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15, Kuravangi-Thammaiah teaches A method comprising: receiving notification of network overload conditions; (the slice priorities for particular DNNs may change. For example, as shown, UDM/UDR 201 may receive network analytics information from Network Data and Analytics Function (“NWDAF”) 305 and/or some other suitable source. In this example, the analytics information may indicate that Slice_1 is relatively congested, overloaded, etc. (e.g., relative to other slices, and/or relative to particular thresholds), paragraph 23) receiving notification of an attach request from a wireless device at home subscriber service (HSS); (AMF 401 may output (some or all operations described herein with regard to UDM/UDR 201 may be performed by a Home Subscriber Server (“HSS”) and/or some other device or system, paragraph 18. at 402) a request for slice information for a particular UE 103 and a particular DNN. AMF 401 may output the request based on, for example, receiving an attach request associated with UE 103, paragraph 27) obtaining a priority network slice for the wireless device from a unified data repository (UDR); (the UDM and UDR may communicate with each other, such as to request and/or provide information (e.g., slice priority information, DNN information, UE information, etc.) in accordance with such embodiments, paragraph 26) and Kuravangi-Thammaiah doesn’t teach sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more IMS application servers. Cai teaches sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more IMS application servers. (HSS 502 is a database that stores subscription-related information or subscriber profiles for users of IMS terminals (also referred to as UE or IMS UE). A P-CSCF 504 is a SIP proxy that is the first point of contact for an IMS terminal. The P-CSCF 504 is assigned to an IMS terminal before registration, and sits on the signaling path to inspect the signaling messages. I-CSCF 506 queries HSS 502 for an address of the S-CSCF 508, and forwards requests/responses to the S-CSCF 508. S-CSCF 508 is the central node of the signaling plane, paragraph 40) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Kuravangi-Thammaiah with sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more IMS application servers as taught by Cai. The motivation for combining Kuravangi-Thammaiah and Cai is to be able to optimized for a variety of characteristics, such as latency, bandwidth, etc. With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16, Kuravangi-Thammaiah doesn’t teach wherein the one or more IMS application servers utilize the priority network slice for the wireless device. Cai teaches wherein the one or more IMS application servers utilize the priority network slice for the wireless device. (when a request is received for an IMS service, IMS slice selection manager 620 may be configured to select an IMS network slice 602-604 that is optimized to provide the IMS service, paragraph 44) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Kuravangi-Thammaiah with sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more IMS application servers as taught by Cai. The motivation for combining Kuravangi-Thammaiah and Cai is to be able to optimized for a variety of characteristics, such as latency, bandwidth, etc. With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17, Kuravangi-Thammaiah doesn’t teach wherein the one or more IMS application servers utilize the priority network slice to attach the wireless device to a wireless network. Cai teaches wherein the one or more IMS application servers utilize the priority network slice to attach the wireless device to a wireless network. (SSF 213 handles an initial attach request and session establishment request from UE 108 by selecting an appropriate network slice for UE 108 based on subscription information, UE usage type, service type, and UE capabilities. NSSF 213 connects with a subscriber repository 306 (e.g., Home Subscriber Server (HSS) and/or Subscriber Profile Repository (SPR)), which is a database or databases that stores subscriber-related information or subscriber profiles. Another type of network function is a Common Control Plane Network Function (CCNF) 304. CCNF 304 is the control plane entry function that is shared among different network slices, and includes the Mobility Management (MM) function, the authentication (AU) function, and the NAS Proxy function. Other types of network functions are Slice-Specific Control Plane Network Functions (CP NF) and Slice-Specific User Plane Network Functions (UP NF). Slice-specific network functions are allocated to a particular network slice (i.e., not shared among network slices), and have no direct interface with (R)AN 104. The network functions that are allocated to a particular network slice are configured to support a particular set of functionalities, such as session management and QoS framework, paragraph 36) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Kuravangi-Thammaiah with sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more IMS application servers as taught by Cai. The motivation for combining Kuravangi-Thammaiah and Cai is to be able to optimized for a variety of characteristics, such as latency, bandwidth, etc. With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, Kuravangi-Thammaiah doesn’t teach wherein the one or more IMS application servers comprise interrogating call session control function (I-CSCF) serving call session control function (S-CSCF), and telephony application server (TAS). Cai teaches wherein the one or more IMS application servers comprise interrogating call session control function (I-CSCF) serving call session control function (S-CSCF), and telephony application server (TAS). (IMS network 402 is a collection of different functions that are linked by standardized interfaces. For example, IMS network 402 includes a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) 502, a Proxy-Call Session Control Function (P-CSCF) 504, an Interrogating-CSCF (I-CSCF) 506, and a Serving-CSCF (S-CSCF) 508 of a control layer (or control plane). IMS network 402 also includes Application Servers (AS) 510 and Media Servers (MS) 512 of an application layer (or user plane). The entities of the control layer handle the signaling messages (e.g., Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to support a session. For example, HSS 502 is a database that stores subscription-related information or subscriber profiles for users of IMS terminals (also referred to as UE or IMS UE). A P-CSCF 504 is a SIP proxy that is the first point of contact for an IMS terminal. The P-CSCF 504 is assigned to an IMS terminal before registration, and sits on the signaling path to inspect the signaling messages. I-CSCF 506 queries HSS 502 for an address of the S-CSCF 508, and forwards requests/responses to the S-CSCF 508. S-CSCF 508 is the central node of the signaling plane. S-CSCF 508 has knowledge of the services subscribed to by the users, and is responsible for enabling the services by contacting the appropriate application server 510. The entities of the application layer process data, store data, and provide services for IMS terminals. Application server 510 is part of the service/application plane, and hosts and executes IMS-specific services, such as IP telephony and multimedia service, paragraph 40) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Kuravangi-Thammaiah with sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more IMS application servers as taught by Cai. The motivation for combining Kuravangi-Thammaiah and Cai is to be able to optimized for a variety of characteristics, such as latency, bandwidth, etc. With respect to claims 5, 12 and 19, Kuravangi-Thammaiah teaches wherein the network overload conditions comprise IP network outage, a fiber cut, site isolation, network congestion, or natural calamities. (load or congestion of various network slices, paragraph 14) With respect to claims 6, 13 and 20, Kuravangi-Thammaiah teaches wherein the network overload conditions are indicated by satisfying a threshold of network slowdown. (The slice priorities for particular DNNs may change. For example, as shown, UDM/UDR 201 may receive network analytics information from Network Data and Analytics Function (“NWDAF”) 305 and/or some other suitable source. In this example, the analytics information may indicate that Slice_1 is relatively congested, overloaded, etc. (e.g., relative to other slices, and/or relative to particular thresholds). For example, the analytics information may indicate that throughput metrics associated with the particular slice exceed a threshold throughput, that a quantity of connections via the particular slice exceed a threshold quantity of connections, et, paragraph 23) Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US Publication 2024/0414637) in view of Cai et al. (US Publication 2021/0021647) further in view of Gadalin et al. (US Publication 2023/0180017) With respect to claims 7 and 14, Kuravangi-Thammaiah doesn’t teach wherein the priority network slice for the wireless device is identified at transport/IP layer Gadalin teaches wherein the priority network slice for the wireless device is identified at transport/IP layer. (. The network traffic for the network slice may be identified at one or more network layers, such as the application layer (e.g., through deep packet inspection), the session layer, the transport layer, the network layer, or the data link layer. The network slices may be ephemeral, or having a specific duration in terms of time or data quantity, or may exist until released or cancelled. The network slice allocation service 425 may support an application programming interface (API) that may be called by applications on client devices 406, and/or backend services that interact with those applications, in order to request that a network slice be allocated, modified, or released. Although the network slice allocation service 425 allocates network slices on the radio-based network 103, there may be one or more devices coupled to the radio-based network 103 through one or more fixed or wired links, and the network slices determined by the network slice allocation service 425 may be applicable to such devices as well, paragraph 94) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Kuravangi-Thammaiah and Cai with wherein the priority network slice for the wireless device is identified at transport/IP layer as taught by Gadalin. The motivation for combining Kuravangi-Thammaiah, Cai, and Gadalin is to be able to provide per-flow or per-application QoS handling, including transport level packet marking for uplink (UL) and downlink (DL), and rate limiting Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sabeur et al. (US Publication 2023/0062145) discloses The HSS can provide the slice identifier to an S-CSCF in the IMS when the UE registers with the IMS. The S-CSCF can share the slice identifier with other IMS elements, such as a P-CSCF and/or one or more application servers. Accordingly, the IMS elements can determine key performance indicators (KPIs) and perform other operations in association with usage of network slices by UEs, based on the same slice identifiers used within the core network. Gupta et al. (US Publication 20230269136) discloses the dynamic slice request includes authorization credentials and a quality of service (QoS) indication for the client application. In response to the dynamic slice request, the network device generates a traffic descriptor value. The traffic descriptor value includes an access token that indicates the QoS authorized for the client application. The network device pushes updated UE Route Selection Policy (URSP) rules to a modem of the UE device, and also separately directs the traffic descriptor value to the client application. The network device receives, from the UE device, a protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment request that includes network slice selection information based on the traffic descriptor value. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3652. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khalid Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3370. 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. /ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 16, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604236
INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND TUNNEL ESTABLISHMENT METHODS, APPARATUSES, COMMUNICATION NODES, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604343
CHANNEL OCCUPANCY TIME (COT) SHARING PROPAGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598605
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD AND DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588072
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR INITIAL ACCESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588038
COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
87%
With Interview (+1.9%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 509 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month