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 Amendments
Applicant's amendments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered. The Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 10 and 17, canceled claims 2, 3, and 18, and added new claims 21-23. Accordingly, claim 1, 4-17, 19-23 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections to claims 1-20 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
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Edge et el. (hereinafter “Edge”, US2007/0060097) in view of Lauster (hereinafter “Lauster”, EP3503599) and further in view of Peden et al. (Hereinafter “Peden”, US 9998908).
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 16: Edge discloses A method to be processed by instructions stored in one or more non-transitory computer-readable media in a system (i.e., The firmware and/or software codes may be stored in a memory (e.g., memory 1212, 1222, 1232, and/or 1242 in FIG. 12) and executed by a processor (e.g., processor 1210, 1220, 1230, and/or 1240). As described in paragraph [0252]) comprising:
receiving, by a server of a telecommunications network, a message from a user equipment (UE) requesting a communication session with a public service answering point (PSAP); (i.e., UE communicates with a visited network to send a request to establish an emergency VoIP call. The UE interacts with a location server instructed by the visited network to obtain a first position estimate for the UE. As described in paragraph [0011]).
determining, based at least in part on the message, that the UE is associated with an unauthorized status for sending the message over the telecommunications network; (i.e., FIGS. 10 and 11 show a network architecture and a message flow, respectively, for emergency VoIP call for a UE without service subscription. As described in paragraph [0020]. Note that the UE without service subscription is interpreted as “unauthorized”).
Edge discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose:
determining by the server and based at least in part on the unauthorized status, a network slice for establishing the communication session over the telecommunications network;
causing, by the server, the UE to access the network slice to provide the communication session with the PSAP; and
monitoring activity by the user equipment over the network slice for a time period, the time period associated with a period of time during which the UE exchanges data over the network slice.
In a similar endeavor, Lauster discloses: determining by the server and based at least in part on the unauthorized status, a network slice for establishing the communication session over the telecommunications network; (i.e., detecting by the access network entity of the network slice of the communication network, based on the E_ID, as described in paragraph [0019]),
causing, by the server, the UE to access the network slice to provide the communication session with the PSAP. (i.e. and establishing, by the emergency network slice, a communication link between the UE and a public safety answering point (PSAP) for processing the emergency message. As described in paragraph [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lauster into the invention of Edge in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not disclose:
monitoring activity by the user equipment over the network slice for a time period, the time period associated with a period of time during which the UE exchanges data over the network slice.
In a similar endeavor, Peden discloses:
monitoring activity by the user equipment over the network slice for a time period, the time period associated with a period of time during which the UE exchanges data over the network slice. (i.e., a method comprising: monitoring operational state data of the UE during times when the UE is operating in a wireless communication network of a home service provider and during other times when the UE is roaming in a wireless communication network of a different service provider. As shown described in paragraph (14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Peden into the invention of Edge and Lauster in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 10: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Lauster further discloses: the method wherein: the telecommunications network comprises a fifth generation (5G) telecommunications network, (i.e., Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram illustrating a system architecture of a 5G communication network 100, As shown described in paragraph [0055]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lauster into the invention of Edge, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
And Edge further discloses determining that the UE is associated with the unauthorized status comprises determining that the UE is not associated with a Mobile Network Operator. (i.e., FIGS. 10 and 11 show a network architecture and a message flow, respectively, for emergency VoIP call for a UE without service subscription, as shown described in paragraph [0020].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Edge into the invention of Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 4, 11, and 19: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Lauster further discloses the method further comprising: determining, by the server, that the message is associated with an emergency event, and wherein determining the network slice is further based at least in part on determining that the message is associated with the emergency event. (i.e., the emergency message comprises an emergency identifier (E_ID); detecting by the access network entity of the network slice of the communication network, based on the E_ID, that the emergency message is related to emergency;], As shown described in paragraph [0019].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lauster into the invention of Edge, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 5, and 12: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Edge further discloses: the method wherein determining that the UE is associated with the unauthorized status is based at least in part on a P-Access-Network-Information (PANI) or an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) included in the message. (i.e., The UE identity may be an International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), a Mobile Subscriber ISDN number (MSISDN), an International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), an Electronic Serial Number (ESN), a Mobile Equipment Identifier (MEID), or some other identity. As shown described in paragraph [0139].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Edge into the invention of Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 14: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Edge further discloses the method discloses the system, the operations further comprising causing data to exchange between the UE and the telecommunications network over the network slice. (i.e. In step 10, E-SLP 272, E-SPC 414 or V-SPC 424 may exchange additional SUPL POS messages with UE. As described in paragraph [0100]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Edge into the invention of Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Claims 6, 9, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Edge et el. (hereinafter “Edge”, US2007/0060097) in view of Lauster (hereinafter “Lauster”, EP3503599), and further in view of Peden et al. (Hereinafter “Peden”, US 9998908), and Mueck (hereinafter “Mueck”, WO2022261244).
Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
detecting presence of potential malicious activity associated with the network slice during the time period.
In a similar endeavor Mueck discloses the method further comprising:
detecting presence of potential malicious activity associated with the network slice during the time period. (i.e. The MEF 1050 detects issues related to untrusted components, through suitable observation of inputs and outputs and the detection of anomalies, as described in paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mueck into the invention of Edge, Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 6, 13, and 20: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
wherein the network slice comprises security information, bandwidth information, and latency information for establishing the communication session between the UE and the PSAP.
In a similar endeavor Mueck discloses the method further comprising:
wherein the network slice comprises security information, (i.e. In some implementations, the 5GS architecture also includes a Security Edge Protection Proxy. As described in paragraph [0131]),
bandwidth information, (i.e. The 5G-NR air interface may utilize bandwidth parts (BWPs) for various purposes. As described in paragraph [0098]),
and latency information (i.e., Increase network latency randomly across the various requests in order to reduce the number of simultaneously arriving requests. As described in paragraph [0057]) for establishing the communication session between the UE and the PSAP.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mueck into the invention of Edge, Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 9: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
the operations further comprising performing an action to mitigate the potential malicious activity associated with the network slice.
In a similar endeavor Mueck discloses: the system, the operations further comprising performing an action to mitigate the potential malicious activity associated with the network slice. (i.e. disconnecting identified untrusted components from network access when an issue is detected. As described in paragraph [0296]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mueck into the invention of Edge, Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 15: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
the operations further comprising: determining that the UE is associated with malicious activity over the network slice; and
removing the UE from the network slice based at least in part on determining that the UE is associated with the malicious activity.
In a similar endeavor Mueck discloses: the system, the operations further comprising:
determining that the UE is associated with malicious activity over the network slice; (i.e. The MEF 1050 detects issues related to untrusted components, through suitable observation of inputs and outputs and the detection of anomalies. As described in paragraph [0053]),
and removing the UE from the network slice based at least in part on determining that the UE is associated with the malicious activity, (i.e. disconnecting identified untrusted components from network access when an issue is detected. As described in paragraph [0296]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Mueck into the invention of Edge, Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Claims 8, 17, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Edge et el. (hereinafter “Edge”, US2007/0060097) in view of Lauster (hereinafter “Lauster”, EP3503599), and further in view of Peden et al. (Hereinafter “Peden”, US 9998908), and Soryal et al. (Hereinafter “Soryal”, US 20230291763).
Regarding claim 8: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above.
Peden further discloses:
monitoring activity by the user equipment over the network slice for a time period; (i.e., a method comprising: monitoring operational state data of the UE during times when the UE is operating in a wireless communication network of a home service provider and during other times when the UE is roaming in a wireless communication network of a different service provider. As shown described in paragraph (14)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Peden into the invention of Edge and Lauster in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
detecting presence of potential malicious activity associated with the network slice during the time period.
In a similar endeavor Soryal discloses:
detecting presence of potential malicious activity associated with the network slice during the time period. (i.e. Example operations 712 and 714 can be performed before, after, or during operations 702-710, in order to disinfect UEs 102 to prevent further coordinated attacks, as described in paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Soryal into the invention of Edge, Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 17, 20, 21 and 22: Edge, Lauster, and Peden disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
detecting presence of potential malicious activity associated with the network slice during the time period.
wherein the time period includes a period of time after the UE exchanges the data over the network slice.
wherein the time period includes a period of time prior to the UE exchanging the data over the network slice.
In a similar endeavor Soryal discloses the method further comprising:
detecting presence of potential malicious activity associated with the network slice during the time period.
wherein the time period includes a period of time after the UE exchanges the data over the network slice.
wherein the time period includes a period of time prior to the UE exchanging the data over the network slice.
(i.e. Example operations 712 and 714 can be performed before, after, or during operations 702-710, in order to disinfect UEs 102 to prevent further coordinated attacks, as described in paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Soryal into the invention of Edge, Lauster, and Peden in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ERIC M. VO whose telephone number is (571)272-9854. The examiner can normally be reached T-F; 7:30 - 5:30.
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 571-270-5371. 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 M. Vo/ Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights