Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/474,277

Methods and Apparatus for Service Assurance for Time-Restricted Short-Lived Networks

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Sep 26, 2023
Examiner
PEREZ, JULIO R
Art Unit
2644
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
590 granted / 709 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
23 currently pending
Career history
732
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
§103
53.6%
+13.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
§112
12.2%
-27.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 709 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §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 Office Action is in response to initial filing on 09/26/2023. Claim 1- 18 are currently pending and have been considered below. Drawings The drawings were received on 09/26/2023. These drawings are reviewed and accepted by the Examiner. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2023 IS in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by applicant’s submission of prior art Hongmei et al (CN112153719). Regarding claim 1, Hongmei discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) (Figure 3, 300 user equipment), active service time information of a first network (the bandwidth corresponding to the temporary network slice can be adjusted in real time … in the event venue during the duration of the event and the types of services actually used by the users, [0041]; The receiving module 201 is configured to receive a notification message sent by an access and mobility management function AMF entity, [0051]), the active service time information indicating an expiration time of operation of the first network or a service (e.g., temporary network slice) provided by the first network (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, and the end time of the temporary network slice may be later than the end time of the activity duration, [0046]; For example, after instantiating a temporary network slice, a timer may be started. When the timer expires, the temporary network slice can be removed, [0047]); and determining, by the UE, whether to select the first network for access based on the active service time information (The sending module 202 is configured to send an access request for an unsigned temporary network slice to the 5G terminal so that the user can choose whether to access the temporary network slice, [0052]) and a network selection policy (users have different functional requirements, such as policy, [0002]), the network selection policy comprising information indicating one or more requirements that are based on network active service time (and users have different performance requirements, such as policy [0002]). Regarding claim 2, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the active service time information comprises one or more of following: an operation duration of the first network, a remaining operation time of the first network, an operation starting time of the first network, an operation ending time of the first network, a notification of an end of the operation of the first network, a counter value reduced by a pre-defined number at a pre-defined interval, a service operation duration of the service (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, and the end time of the temporary network slice may be later than the end time of the activity duration, [0046]), a starting time of the service (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, [0046]), a remaining service operation time of the service, an ending time of the service, or a service notification of an end of the service. Regarding claim 3, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the network selection policy specifies that a network is selectable by the UE when the network satisfies the one or more requirements (users have different functional requirements, such as priority, charging, policy control, security, mobility, etc., [0002]). Regarding claim 4, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more requirements comprise: a minimum remaining operation time required for a network selectable by the UE (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, and the end time of the temporary network slice may be later than the end time of the activity duration, [0046]), or a restriction on starting and ending time of operation of the network selectable by the UE. Regarding claim 6, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: upon determining to access the first network, setting, by the UE, a timer according to the expiration time of the operation of the first network or the service (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, and the end time of the temporary network slice may be later than the end time of the activity duration, [0046]); and accessing, by the UE, the first network for a first service according to the timer (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, [0046]). Regarding claim 7, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: terminating, by the UE, the first service with the first network when or before the timer expires (For example, after instantiating a temporary network slice, a timer may be started. When the timer expires, the temporary network slice can be removed, [0047]). Regarding claim 9, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: requesting, by the UE, to extend an expiration time of the first service for the UE (the start time of the temporary network slice may be earlier than the start time of the activity duration, and the end time of the temporary network slice may be later than the end time of the activity duration to ensure the network experience of the user when participating in the activity, [0046]). Regarding claim 10, Hongmei discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the UE, updated active service time information of the first network (adjusting the bandwidth corresponding to the temporary network slice in real time according to the number of users, [0009]). Claim 11 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Hongmei, “ The invention provides a communication method,” Abstract). Claim 12 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 14 contains subject matter similar to claim 1, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. (Hongmei, “computer-readable storage medium on which computer program instructions are stored, instructions are executed by a processor,”). Claim 15 contains subject matter similar to claim 2, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 16 contains subject matter similar to claim 4, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 17 contains subject matter similar to claim 6, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongmei in view of Peirong (CN112243243). Regarding claim 5, Hongmei does not expressly discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the network selection policy is received by the UE in a UE parameter update (UPU) message, a UE configuration update (UCU) message, or a control message for network selection configuration. However, Peirong discloses the network selection policy is received by the UE in a UE parameter update (UPU) message, a UE configuration update (UCU) message, or a control message for network selection configuration (a network slice selection policy … and the network slice selection policy is added to the user routing selection policy URSP, and a configuration update response is returned to the AMF entity to confirm the completion of the configuration update, [0030]). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hongmei with the teachings in Peirong, the rationale being to ensure network efficiency and service continuity based on policy changes. Claim 13 contains subject matter similar to claim 5, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hongmei in view of Ke (11570667). Regarding claim 8, Hongmei does not expressly disclose method of claim 6, further comprising: initiating, by the UE before the timer expires, a service continuity procedure to move the first service from the first network to a second network. However, Ke discloses initiating, by the UE before the timer expires, a service continuity procedure to move the first service from the first network to a second network (when the terminal moves out of coverage of the first network or a signal quality of the first network is no longer sufficient for access, for the continuity of the related service, performing handover to the second network that is able to support the related service, col. 10, ll. 5-10). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hongmei with the teachings in Ke, the rationale being to ensure and maintain the continuity of the related service in an efficient and secure manner. Claim 18 contains subject matter similar to claim 8, and thus, is rejected under similar rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIO R PEREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7846. The examiner can normally be reached 10Am - 6PM EST M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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. /JULIO R PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 26, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598520
Managing Frequency Preferences
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587956
METHODS, SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER READABLE MEDIA FOR USING NETWORK FUNCTION (NF) REPOSITORY FUNCTION (NRF) TO PROVIDE MAPPING OF SINGLE NETWORK SLICE SELECTION ASSISTANCE INFORMATION (S-NSSAI) FOR ROAMING AND INTER-PUBLIC LAND MOBILE NETWORK (INTER-PLMN) TRAFFIC
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12568431
ON DEMAND NETWORK SLICING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12543111
DYNAMIC RADIO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY SELECTION FOR 5G WIRELESS DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12543027
METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR PROVIDING EXTENDED ACCESS TO A LOCAL AREA DATA NETWORK, COMPUTER PROGRAM AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
83%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+9.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 709 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