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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4 in the Remarks, filed May 14, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 14, 16-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kolan (US Publication 2025/0024315 A1).
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)(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 1-3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kolan (US Publication 2025/0024315 A1).
Regarding to claims 1, 10, and 17, Kolan discloses a system 700/800 (fig. 7-8) comprising: at least one network device 200 (fig. 2 page 4 paragraph 0052) including one or more processors 210 (page 4 paragraph 0053) configured to: receive (fig. 7), from a user device 508, a slice selection 502 to associate an application 506 on the user device with a network slice (page 8 paragraph 0091); generate, after the receiving, a slice recommendation for the application to switch (migrate) to a different network slice (slice B) based on at least one of device parameters or network parameters (fig. 8 page 9 paragraph 0096); and provide, to the user device, the slice recommendation for presentation to a user (page 17 paragraph 0184).
Regarding to claim 2, Kolan discloses providing, to the user via the user device, a slice selection menu, and receiving user input via the slice selection menu (page 17 paragraph 0184).
Regarding to claim 3, Kolan discloses the slice selection menu includes options for the user to associate a network slice descriptor with individual applications on the user device (page 3 paragraph 0042).
Regarding to claims 5 and 14, Kolan discloses receiving an application ID for the application (pages 9-10 paragraph 0103).
Regarding to claims 9, 16, and 20, Kolan discloses generating, by one or more network devices, a different slice recommendation (page 9 paragraph 0096); and providing, by the one or more network devices and to the user device, the different slice recommendation for presentation to the user (page 17 paragraph 0184).
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, 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 6, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolan in view of Yang (US Publication 2023/0354172 A1).
Regarding to claims 6, 11, and 18, Kolan discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 10, and 17 except for the slice recommendation based on a location of the UE device. However, Yang discloses a network device 101 (fig. 10) generating a slice recommendation based on a location of a UE device (page 5 paragraph 0066). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for the slice recommendation as taught by Yang into Kolan’s system to better select network that can improve the user experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duc T Duong whose telephone number is (571)272-3122. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9am-6pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/DUC T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights