DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
No canceled claim.
No newly added claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed on 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they moot in view of new ground of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 7 of copending Application No. 18/413656 in view of Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US 20240414637), in view of Shekhar et al. (US 20230370950). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are rendered obvious by the claims of the copending Application No. 18/413656 Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US 20240414637), in view of Shekhar et al. (US 20230370950).
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the copending Application No. 18/413656 and the applications are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/419,781
Copending Application No. 18/413656
Claims 1, 8, and 15 maps to
Claim 1
Claims 5-7 and 12-14
Claims 5-7
Claim 19 maps to
Claim 5
Claim 20 maps to
Claim 20
Claim 1 of the Copending Application No. 18/413656 recites all subject matter recited in instant claim 1 except that “receiving notification of an attach request from a wireless device at unified data management (UDM); determining, by a network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a subscriber priority level of the wireless device; in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level and storing assignment of the priority network slice in a unified data repository (UDR); and sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more 5G core network functions.”
Kuravangi-Thammaiah discloses, receiving notification of an attach request from a wireless device at unified data management (UDM) (Par. 0027, fig. 4 AMF 401 may output (at 402) a request for slice information for a particular UE 103, for example, receiving an attach request associated with UE 103, i.e. as shown in fig. 4, UDM receives attach request associated with UE 103);
determining, by a network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a subscriber priority level of the wireless device (Par. 0021, The various priority levels, for each UE, may be based on subscription information, types or categories of such UEs, and/or other factors. In some embodiments, the authorization for particular network slices, and/or the priority of such network slices for each UE, may be determined or provided by an owner or operator of network 101. Par. 0033-0036, AMF 401 may receive communication session (e.g., PDU session) establishment request from UE 103 and/or from some other source, may receive a handover request associated with UE 103, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain information indicating slice priorities on a per-UE basis or on a “universal” or “system-wide” basis, process 700 may also include selecting (at 708) a particular network slice based on the slice priority information. For example, AMF 401, an SMF, etc. may select a particular network slice, out of multiple eligible network slices, based on the slice priority information, i.e. determining and selecting slice based on priority level of requesting UE performed by AMF 401 or SMF that are part of the core network as shown in fig. 8 par. 0038);
storing assignment of the priority network slice in a unified data repository (UDR) (Par. 0034, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain information indicating slice priorities on a per-UE basis or on a “universal” or “system-wide” basis); and
sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more 5G core network functions (Par. 0021, UE is associated with priority level for each slices, For example, Slice_3 may have a highest priority for UE_1, while Slice_2 and Slice_1 may have lower priority for UE_1. On the other hand, Slice_1 may have a highest priority for UE_4, while Slice_2 and Slice_3 have relatively lower priority for UE_4. Par. 0022, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain data structure 301, which indicates slices associated with particular DNNs, as well as a relative priority for each slice with regard to each DNN, such asSlice_1 may be a highest priority slice for DNN_1 and Slice_2 may be a lower priority slice for DNN_1, Slice_1 may be a highest priority slice for DNN_2 and Slice_3 may be a lower priority slice for DNN_2, i.e. slices are shared among wireless devices and multiple DNN. Par. 0038, fig. 8, 5G network as example environment 800, environment network 800 represent a 5G core, environment 800 includes UE103, and various network functions such as AMF 401, Par. 0039, environment 800 may include multiple “slices” of a core network, where each slice includes a discrete and/or logical set of network functions (e.g., one slice may include a first instance of AMF 401, SMF/PGW-C 820, PCF/PCRF 825, and/or UPF/PGW-U 835, while another slice may include a second instance of AMF 401, SMF/PGW-C 820, PCF/PCRF 825, and/or UPF/PGW-U 835), i.e. slices are shared among wireless devices and used for performing variety of other network functions ).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the copending Application No. 18/413656 to include above limitation as taught by Kuravangi-Thammaiah, is to provide different network slices that are each associated with a particular set of QoS parameters, as disclosed in Kuravangi-Thammaiah par. 0001.
Claim 1 of the Copending Application No. 18/413656 in view of Kuravangi-Thammaiah does not disclose, in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level.
Shekhar discloses, in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level (Par. 0045-0046, a new flag may be provided in a subscription profile/information for a given subscriber/UE within PCF/UDM 126 to indicate that a subscriber is a ‘premium subscriber’ for certain allowed network slices. In at least one embodiment, such subscribers can be allowed specific slice services, even in cases involving overload conditions, the NSACF 124 could maintain some reserved quota for premium subscribers (e.g., X % of the total quota, based on operator configuration) for registration quota and/or PDU session quota, could be reserved for premium subscribers in order to allow such premium subscribers to be ensured registration to certain network slice(s), even in cases involving overload situations, i.e. in case of network overload condition, therefore in response to, allows registration to certain network slices (i.e. prioritizing certain network slices) for premium subscriber (i.e. based on subscriber priority level). Par. 0028, fig. 1 discloses mobile core network 120 may be representative of a 5G core (5GC) network include a Policy Control Function (PCF) and Unified Data Management (UDM) entity 126), i.e. PCF/UDM 126 (i.e. network slice prioritization system) located within 5G wireless core network).
It would have been obvious to modify the claim of the copending Application No. 18/413656 in view of Kuravangi-Thammaiah to include features such as, in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level, as taught by Shekhar, to provide better enhanced network slice admission control procedures which may facilitate improved user experience within slicing-based mobile network implementations, as disclosed in Shekhar par. 0009 and 0042. All other subject matter recited in the claims of this application find corresponding subject matter in the claims of the copending Application No. 18/413656, or recite only obvious variations thereof.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US 20240414637), in view of Shekhar et al. (US 20230370950).
Regarding claim 1, Kuravangi-Thammaiah discloses, A method comprising:
receiving notification of network overload conditions (Par. 0023, UDM/UDR 201 may receive network analytics information, 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);
receiving notification of an attach request from a wireless device at unified data management (UDM) (Par. 0027, fig. 4 AMF 401 may output (at 402) a request for slice information for a particular UE 103, for example, receiving an attach request associated with UE 103, i.e. as shown in fig. 4, UDM receives attach request associated with UE 103);
determining, by a network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a subscriber priority level of the wireless device (Par. 0021, The various priority levels, for each UE, may be based on subscription information, types or categories of such UEs, and/or other factors. In some embodiments, the authorization for particular network slices, and/or the priority of such network slices for each UE, may be determined or provided by an owner or operator of network 101. Par. 0033-0036, AMF 401 may receive communication session (e.g., PDU session) establishment request from UE 103 and/or from some other source, may receive a handover request associated with UE 103, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain information indicating slice priorities on a per-UE basis or on a “universal” or “system-wide” basis, process 700 may also include selecting (at 708) a particular network slice based on the slice priority information. For example, AMF 401, an SMF, etc. may select a particular network slice, out of multiple eligible network slices, based on the slice priority information, i.e. determining and selecting slice based on priority level of requesting UE performed by AMF 401 or SMF that are part of the core network as shown in fig. 8 par. 0038);
storing assignment of the priority network slice in a unified data repository (UDR) (Par. 0034, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain information indicating slice priorities on a per-UE basis or on a “universal” or “system-wide” basis); and
sharing the priority network slice for the wireless device with one or more 5G core network functions (Par. 0021, UE is associated with priority level for each slices, For example, Slice_3 may have a highest priority for UE_1, while Slice_2 and Slice_1 may have lower priority for UE_1. On the other hand, Slice_1 may have a highest priority for UE_4, while Slice_2 and Slice_3 have relatively lower priority for UE_4. Par. 0022, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain data structure 301, which indicates slices associated with particular DNNs, as well as a relative priority for each slice with regard to each DNN, such asSlice_1 may be a highest priority slice for DNN_1 and Slice_2 may be a lower priority slice for DNN_1, Slice_1 may be a highest priority slice for DNN_2 and Slice_3 may be a lower priority slice for DNN_2, i.e. slices are shared among wireless devices and multiple DNN. Par. 0038, fig. 8, 5G network as example environment 800, environment network 800 represent a 5G core, environment 800 includes UE103, and various network functions such as AMF 401, Par. 0039, environment 800 may include multiple “slices” of a core network, where each slice includes a discrete and/or logical set of network functions (e.g., one slice may include a first instance of AMF 401, SMF/PGW-C 820, PCF/PCRF 825, and/or UPF/PGW-U 835, while another slice may include a second instance of AMF 401, SMF/PGW-C 820, PCF/PCRF 825, and/or UPF/PGW-U 835), i.e. slices are shared among wireless devices and used for performing variety of other network functions ).
Kuravangi-Thammaiah does not disclose, in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level.
Shekhar discloses, in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level (Par. 0045-0046, a new flag may be provided in a subscription profile/information for a given subscriber/UE within PCF/UDM 126 to indicate that a subscriber is a ‘premium subscriber’ for certain allowed network slices. In at least one embodiment, such subscribers can be allowed specific slice services, even in cases involving overload conditions, the NSACF 124 could maintain some reserved quota for premium subscribers (e.g., X % of the total quota, based on operator configuration) for registration quota and/or PDU session quota, could be reserved for premium subscribers in order to allow such premium subscribers to be ensured registration to certain network slice(s), even in cases involving overload situations, i.e. in case of network overload condition, therefore in response to, allows registration to certain network slices (i.e. prioritizing certain network slices) for premium subscriber (i.e. based on subscriber priority level). Par. 0028, fig. 1 discloses mobile core network 120 may be representative of a 5G core (5GC) network include a Policy Control Function (PCF) and Unified Data Management (UDM) entity 126), i.e. PCF/UDM 126 (i.e. network slice prioritization system) located within 5G wireless core network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kuravangi-Thammaiah, by teachings of in response to receiving the notification of network overload conditions, assigning, by the network slice prioritization system located within a core wireless network, a priority network slice for the wireless device based on the subscriber priority level, as taught by Shekhar, to provide better enhanced network slice admission control procedures which may facilitate improved user experience within slicing-based mobile network implementations, as disclosed in Shekhar par. 0009 and 0042.
Regarding claim 2, The method of claim 1,
Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, wherein the one or more 5G core network functions utilize the priority network slice for the wireless device (Par. 0038, fig. 8, 5G network as example environment 800, environment network 800 represent a 5G core, environment 800 includes UE103, and various network functions such as AMF 401. Par. 0027, fig. 4 AMF 401 may output (at 402) a request for slice information for a particular UE 103, for example, receiving an attach request associated with UE 103, i.e. as shown in fig. 4, 5G core network function AMF 401 requests and receives priority slices for the wireless device UE 103).
Regarding claim 3, The method of claim 1,
Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, wherein the one or more 5G core network functions utilize the priority network slice to attach the wireless device to a wireless network (Par. 0027, fig. 4 AMF 401 may output (at 402) a request for slice information for a particular UE 103, for example, receiving an attach request associated with UE 103. Par. 0028, AMF 401 may select (at 406) a particular slice for UE 103, based on the received (at 404) slice information as well as the requested DNN. AMF 401 may proceed with further operations based on the selected slice, such as by completing or facilitating a PDU session establishment via the selected slice, completing or facilitating an attach request via the selected slice, etc).
Regarding claim 5, The method of claim 1,
Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, wherein the network overload conditions comprise IP network outage, a fiber cut, site isolation, network congestion, or natural calamities (Par. 0014, load or congestion of various network slices, i.e. network overload = network congestion).
Regarding claim 6, The method of claim 1,
Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, wherein the network overload conditions are indicated by satisfying a threshold of network slowdown (Par. 0023, UDM/UDR 201 may receive network analytics information from Network Data and Analytics Function. 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, etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 1, respectively, Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, A system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions and a database, the database storing subscriber information including a subscriber priority (Par. 0072, Memory 1130 may include any type of dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 1120. Par. 0060, subscriber databases (e.g., UDM 909, UDR 913, etc.), i.e. UDM and UDR are subscriber databases storing subscriber information. Par. 0034, UDM/UDR 201 may maintain information indicating slice priorities on a per-UE basis, i.e. UDM and UDR databases storing subscriber priorities, here UE is the subscriber); and
a processor executing the instructions to perform operations (Par. 0075).
Regarding claim 9, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 1, respectively, Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, A system comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor to perform operations (Par. 0075).
Regarding claim 16, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, Kuravangi-Thammaiah meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US 20240414637), in view of Shekhar et al. (US 20230370950), in further view of Qiao et al. (US 20230422293).
Regarding claim 4, The method of claim 1,
Kuravangi-Thammaiah further discloses, wherein the one or more 5G core network functions comprise access and mobility function (AMF), session management function (SMF), and policy control function (PCF) (Par. 0038, fig. 8, environment 800 may correspond to a Fifth Generation (“5G”) network, portions of environment 800 may represent or may include a 5G core (“5GC”). As shown, environment 800 may include various network functions such as AMF 401, SMF/Packet Data Network (“PDN”) Gateway, Policy Control Function (“PCF”)).
Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar does not disclose, wherein the one or more 5G core network functions comprise short message service function (SMSP).
Qiao discloses, wherein the one or more 5G core network functions comprise short message service function (SMSP) (Par. 0043, fig. 1b, communication network includes 5G core network. Par. 0056, core network includes services, like, a short message service function (SMSF)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar, by teachings wherein the one or more 5G core network functions comprise short message service function (SMSP), as taught by Qiao, to provide priority to short messages communications, such as alert.
Regarding claim 11, Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar in further view of Qiao meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar in further view of Qiao meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 4.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuravangi-Thammaiah et al. (US 20240414637), in view of Shekhar et al. (US 20230370950), in view of Gadalin et al. (US 20230180017).
Regarding claim 7, The method of claim 1,
Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar does not disclose, wherein the priority network slice for the wireless device is identified at transport/IP layer.
Gadalin discloses, wherein the priority network slice for the wireless device is identified at transport/IP layer (Par. 0094, The network slice allocation service 425 is executed to allocate network slices to applications and/or client devices 406 that are connected to a RAN of a radio-based network 103 having an associated core network, the term “network slice” refers to particular network traffic that is assigned one or more particular locality rules 434, a priority according to one or more quality-of-service requirements and/or that is provided with a hardware capacity reservation in order to receive, transmit, or manage the network traffic. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar, by teachings wherein the priority network slice for the wireless device is identified at transport/IP layer, as taught by Gadalin, to provide per-flow or per-application QoS handling, including transport level packet marking for uplink (UL) and downlink (DL), as disclosed in Gadalin, 0033.
Regarding claim 14, Kuravangi-Thammaiah in view of Shekhar in further view of Gadalin meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20240155412, US 11870638, US 20230388415).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 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, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights