Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/536,981

APPLICATION AND NETWORK SLICE MAPPING SERVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Dec 12, 2023
Examiner
GUADALUPE CRUZ, AIXA AMYR
Art Unit
2466
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
368 granted / 505 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
42 currently pending
Career history
547
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.0%
-35.0% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§112
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 505 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination. Claim Objections Claims 14 and 15 appear to be duplicates. Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ianev et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0373481; hereinafter Ianev). Regarding claim 1 Ianev discloses a method comprising: receiving, by an end device, a network request from an end device application hosted at the end device (paragraphs 0276, 0290, 0292; UL NAS TRANSPORT message encapsulating a PDU Session Establishment Request message); mapping, by the end device based on the network request, application categories included in user equipment route selection policy (URSP) information (paragraphs 0290-0293; wherein applications are mapped to categories, namely S-NSSAIs, based on the request message); selecting, by the end device based on the mapping, one or multiple network slices (paragraphs 0290-0293; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3); assigning, by the end device, quality of service (QoS) identifier values for each of the application categories (paragraph 0299; the UE may indicate a Priority parameter related to the compatible S-NSSAI(s) in the UL NAS TRANSPORT message; wherein QoS is given its broadest reasonable interpretation that includes it referring to a set of technologies that work on a network to guarantee its ability to dependably run high-priority applications and traffic under limited network capacity, accomplishing this by providing differentiated handling and capacity allocation to specific flows in network traffic – thus priority parameter is interpreted as such QoS value); and applying, by the end device, a scheduling algorithm for each of the application categories that are assigned to a same network slice of the one or multiple network slices (paragraphs 0299, 0384, 0409-0410; wherein PDU session transmission is performed according to a policy determined by the request message, and priority). Regarding claim 2 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the end device based on the applying, traffic to an application server during a packet data unit (PDU) session (paragraphs 0297-0300; 0384; PDU session is established, packets communicated via the selected slice(s)). Regarding claim 3 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the end device, whether multiple network slices can be selected based on data included in the network request (paragraphs 0290-0299; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, and any of these slices can be selected for the PDU session). Regarding claim 4 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the application categories are indicated in connection capabilities traffic descriptors of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290, 0295, 0298; data network name (DNN) for example). Regarding claim 5 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or multiple network slices are indicated in network slice selection route descriptors of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290-0299; e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3). Regarding claim 6 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the application categories include two or more application categories that are operator specific (paragraphs 0474-0475; IoT applications). Regarding claim 7 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the network request includes data indicating application categories (paragraphs 0290-0299; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3). Regarding claim 8 the method of claim 1, wherein the network request includes data indicating application traffic characteristics, and the method further comprises: correlating, by the end device, the application traffic characteristics to the application categories of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290-0299, 0401-0410; data priority level associated with NSSAIs). Regarding claim 9 Ianev discloses an end device comprising: a communication interface (fig. 6, transceiver 31); and a processor (fig. 6, processor 33), wherein the processor is configured to: receive a network request from an end device application hosted at the end device (paragraphs 0276, 0290, 0292; UL NAS TRANSPORT message encapsulating a PDU Session Establishment Request message); map, based on the network request, application categories included in user equipment route selection policy (URSP) information (paragraphs 0290-0293; wherein applications are mapped to categories, namely S-NSSAIs, based on the request message); select, based on the mapping, one or multiple network slices (paragraphs 0290-0293; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3); assign quality of service (QoS) identifier values for each of the application categories (paragraph 0299; the UE may indicate a Priority parameter related to the compatible S-NSSAI(s) in the UL NAS TRANSPORT message; wherein QoS is given its broadest reasonable interpretation that includes it referring to a set of technologies that work on a network to guarantee its ability to dependably run high-priority applications and traffic under limited network capacity, accomplishing this by providing differentiated handling and capacity allocation to specific flows in network traffic – thus priority parameter is interpreted as such QoS value); and apply a scheduling algorithm for each of the application categories that are assigned to a same network slice of the one or multiple network slices (paragraphs 0299, 0384, 0409-0410; wherein PDU session transmission is performed according to a policy determined by the request message, and priority). Regarding claim 10 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, based on the applying, traffic to an application server during a packet data unit (PDU) session (paragraphs 0297-0300; 0384; PDU session is established, packets communicated via the selected slice(s)). Regarding claim 11 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether multiple network slices can be selected based on data included in the network request (paragraphs 0290-0299; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, and any of these slices can be selected for the PDU session). Regarding claim 12 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the application categories are indicated in connection capabilities traffic descriptors of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290, 0295, 0298; data network name (DNN) for example). Regarding claim 13 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the one or multiple network slices are indicated in network slice selection route descriptors of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290-0299; e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3). Regarding claim 14 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the application categories include two or more application categories that are operator specific (paragraphs 0474-0475; IoT applications). Regarding claim 15 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the application categories include two or more application categories that are operator specific (paragraphs 0474-0475; IoT applications). Regarding claim 16 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the network request includes data indicating application traffic characteristics, and the processor is further configured to: correlate the application traffic characteristics to the application categories of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290-0299, 0401-0410; data priority level associated with NSSAIs). Regarding claim 17 Ianev discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor of an end device (paragraph 0513), wherein the instructions are configured to: receive a network request from an end device application hosted at the end device (paragraphs 0276, 0290, 0292; UL NAS TRANSPORT message encapsulating a PDU Session Establishment Request message); map, based on the network request, application categories included in user equipment route selection policy (URSP) information (paragraphs 0290-0293; wherein applications are mapped to categories, namely S-NSSAIs, based on the request message); select, based on the mapping, one or multiple network slices (paragraphs 0290-0293; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3); assign quality of service (QoS) identifier values for each of the application categories (paragraph 0299; the UE may indicate a Priority parameter related to the compatible S-NSSAI(s) in the UL NAS TRANSPORT message; wherein QoS is given its broadest reasonable interpretation that includes it referring to a set of technologies that work on a network to guarantee its ability to dependably run high-priority applications and traffic under limited network capacity, accomplishing this by providing differentiated handling and capacity allocation to specific flows in network traffic – thus priority parameter is interpreted as such QoS value); and apply a scheduling algorithm for each of the application categories that are assigned to a same network slice of the one or multiple network slices (paragraphs 0299, 0384, 0409-0410; wherein PDU session transmission is performed according to a policy determined by the request message, and priority). Regarding claim 18 Ianev discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions are further configured to: transmit, based on the applying, traffic to an application server during a packet data unit (PDU) session (paragraphs 0297-0300; 0384; PDU session is established, packets communicated via the selected slice(s)). Regarding claim 19 Ianev discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the instructions are further configured to: determine whether multiple network slices can be selected based on data included in the network request (paragraphs 0290-0299; mapping rules within the URSP rules are mapping the service requiring Application with several network slices, e.g. S-NSSAI-1, S-NSSAI-2, S-NSSAI-3, and any of these slices can be selected for the PDU session). Regarding claim 20 Ianev discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the application categories are indicated in connection capabilities traffic descriptors of the URSP information (paragraphs 0290, 0295, 0298; data network name (DNN) for example). Citation of Pertinent Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPGPUB 2025/0071573 to Daoud et al. – which discloses methods and apparatus for automatically generating network slices, e.g., in accordance with AI machine learned predictions of needs for slices by the network. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM. 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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. /Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/ Examiner Art Unit 2466 /FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 12, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588075
Base Station Operations for Reduced Capability User Equipment
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588066
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PERFORMING RANDOM ACCESS IN NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587428
Dormant Mode Measurement Optimization
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12574842
Methods and Apparatuses for Maritime Communication
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563606
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DRIVING PDCP ENTITY DURING DAPS HANDOVER IN NEXT-GENERATION WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 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
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+19.4%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 505 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