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 .
Responsive to amendments filed 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 15, and 17-19 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Claim 15 has been amended and the claim objection has been overcome.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented below and necessitated by the amendments.
With regards to the amended limitation “applying, by the end device during a packet data (PDU) session, a scheduling algorithm to traffic…”, it is respectfully submitted that the teachings of Ianev directed to packet/data transmission, are applied to traffic of a PDU session during the session. Wherein, PDU session traffic is sent via a specific network slice that meets the QoS requirements of the packets of the session as described in paragraphs 0300-0322, amongst others.
Regarding the amendments to claim 3 (and corresponding claims 11 and 19), the cited art is believed to meet the claim amendments. Namely, the UE makes a notation or information in a request message, to indicate one or multiple slices that can be selected to establish the requested session (paragraphs 0267, 0290, 0300, amongst others).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0373481; hereinafter Ianev) in view of Jin et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0031298; hereinafter Jin).
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 during a packet data unit (PDU) session, a scheduling algorithm to traffic 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).
Ianev fails to explicitly disclose but Jin, in the same field of endeavor related to network slicing, discloses the QoS identifier to specifically be a 5G QoS Identifier (5QI) (paragraphs 0174, 0175, 0227-0239; wherein 5QI is applied as description for the QoS flows). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ianev with the teachings of Jin, in order to improve network reliability (Jin: paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 2 Ianev discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the end device based on the applying, the traffic to an application server during the 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 prior to the mapping and as a binary choice, whether a single network slice or 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, during a packet data unit (PDU) session, a scheduling algorithm to traffic 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).
Ianev fails to explicitly disclose but Jin, in the same field of endeavor related to network slicing, discloses the QoS identifier to specifically be a 5G QoS Identifier (5QI) (paragraphs 0174, 0175, 0227-0239; wherein 5QI is applied as description for the QoS flows). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ianev with the teachings of Jin, in order to improve network reliability (Jin: paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 10 Ianev discloses the end device of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, based on the applying, the traffic to an application server during the 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, prior to the mapping and as binary choice, whether a single network slice or 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 network request includes data indicating application categories (paragraphs 0290-0291; wherein the NAS transport message, which encapsulates the PDU request message, includes data related to S-NSSAIs which has a mapping to the application categories triggering the service in the UE, the mapping performed by an NSSP).
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, during a packet data unit (PDU) session, a scheduling algorithm to traffic 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).
Ianev fails to explicitly disclose but Jin, in the same field of endeavor related to network slicing, discloses the QoS identifier to specifically be a 5G QoS Identifier (5QI) (paragraphs 0174, 0175, 0227-0239; wherein 5QI is applied as description for the QoS flows). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Ianev with the teachings of Jin, in order to improve network reliability (Jin: paragraph 0007).
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, the traffic to an application server during the 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, prior to the mapping and as a binary choice, whether a single network slice or 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights