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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/30/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 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).
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 (UiE) 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; and
causing, by the server, the UE to access the network slice to provide the communication session with the PSAP.
However, 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]), and
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.
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 18 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, and further expressly disclose feature of these claims:
Lauster 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]), and
In addition, Edge 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 Lauster into the invention of Edge in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 4, 11, and 19 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, and further expressly disclose feature of these claims:
Lauster 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 in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 5, and 12 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, and further expressly disclose feature of these claims:
Edge 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 Lauster into the invention of Edge in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 14 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, and further expressly disclose feature of these claims:
Edge 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 Lauster into the invention of Edge in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 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 Mueck (hereinafter “Mueck”, WO2022261244).
Regarding claim 2, 8, and 17 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
In a similar endeavor Mueck discloses the method further comprising:
monitoring activity by the user equipment over the network slice for a time period; and 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 and Lauster in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 6, 13, and 20 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
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 and Lauster in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 9 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
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 and Lauster in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Regarding claim 15 Edge and Lauster disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose feature of these claims:
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 and Lauster in order to provide an optimal level of services to users.
Conclusion
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