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 Office Action is a response to communications dated 05/28/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: As per claims 16-20, a revisit the specification, in paragraph [0089] and thereinafter, memory/storage 1112 is disclosed to include “any other type of memory device technology.” Moreover, the memory is disclosed to corresponding to “computer-readable storage medium” paragraph [0077]. To clearly deviate the claimed “computer-readable storage medium” from being read on claiming a signal carrier wave or a transmission medium, the Applicant should further amend the claims to replace “computer-readable storage media” with “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (US 10,959,160) (hereinafter “Lou”) in Zhang (CN 113766534 A) (see Google Translation of CN 113766534 A, pages 1-11).
Regarding claim 1, in accordance with Lou reference entirety, Lou teaches a method implemented on a first device (second network device), the method comprising:
storing, based on a subscription with a network (first network device), slice configuration information for one or more slices between the first device and the network, the one or more slices configured for the first device based on the subscription (FIG. 3; step 303 and col. 10, lines 18-20: “Step 303. The second network device receives the network slice configuration information sent by the first network device.” Fig. 3; step 303 and col. 14, lines 30-33: “Finally, in step 304, the second network device stores the network slice configuration information, and performs the network slice configuration based on the network slice configuration information.” Moreover; customized service or slice selection and routing function or parameter configuration is discussed in col. 9, lines 1-14 and equated to corresponding “subscription”); and
routing, based on the slice configuration information and by using the one or more slices, first slice traffic between a second device and the network, the first device and the second device having a first data connection and being user devices associated with the subscription (col. 12, lines 11-16: “network slice routing information, which includes but is not limited to a CN control plane entity identifier and a CN user plane entity identifier, and is used in a RAN to route a service flow of a terminal to a CN control plane or a CN control plane entity that is designated by a corresponding network slice.”).
For argument’s sake, let’s say that Lou fails to explicitly teach the claim limitation of “routing, based on the slice configuration information and by using the one or more slices, first slice traffic between a second device and the network, the first device and the second device having a first data connection and being user devices associated with the subscription.” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Lou’s teaching is well-known in the art of network slicing and taught by Zhang.
In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches network slice mapping method (Zhang; page 1; Abstract and thereinafter) comprising, among other things, the limitation of “routing, based on the slice configuration information and by using the one or more slices, first slice traffic between a second device and the network, the first device and the second device having a first data connection and being user devices associated with the subscription” (Zhang; page 1; Abstract: “… the terminal maps the first data stream of the first application to the first user equipment routing according to the network slice configuration information protocol URSP to transmit the first data stream … .” Or see claim 1 for same discussion. Or page 6: “It can be seen that, in this embodiment, the terminal first obtains network slice configuration information, where the network slice configuration information includes a correspondence between application association information and a network slice, and the application association information refers to information related to an application program; secondly, the terminal stores the network slice configuration information, and finally, the terminal maps the first data stream of the first application program to the first URSP according to the network slice configuration information so as to transmit the first data stream. Therefore, the terminal can establish and manage the mapping relation between the data stream of the application program and the URSP through the network slice, and realize the routing of the data stream of the application program.").
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Zhang’s teaching of network slice mapping method into Lou’s to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome the existing shortfalls of existing art in making clear how the mapping relationship between the data stream of the application program and the URSP is established and managed (Zhang; page 3, Background, third paragraph).
As per claim 8, the claim appears to call for an apparatus having limitations variously and essentially similar to functional limitations of those in method claim 1. Therefore, it is rendered obvious over Lou in view of Zhang for the same rationales applied to method claim 1 as above discussed.
As per claim 16, the claim appears to call for computer-readable storage media storing instructions thereon and having limitations variously and essentially similar to functional limitations of those in method claim 1. Therefore, it is rendered obvious over Lou in view of Zhang for the same rationales applied to method claim 1 as above discussed.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to features recited in base claim 16 (see rationales discussed above), Lou in view of Zhang also renders obvious the claim limitation of “wherein the operations further comprise: storing one or more user equipment routing selection policy (URSP) rules corresponding to the one or more slices and indicating at least one of: different routing descriptors or route selection descriptor lists” (Zhang; page 4; Detail Description, fourth paragraph: "User equipment Route option strategy (UE Route Selection Policy, URSP). The Policy information is one of Policy information provided by the 5G core network 5GC from a Policy Control Function (PCF) to a User Equipment (UE). The UE uses this policy to determine how to route the data outbound path. The UE may determine, via the URSP rules, whether the detected application may be associated with an already established POU session, may route to a non-3GPP tunnel outside of the POU session, or may establish a new POU session. An important input data in the URSP rule is the parameters in the Traffic Descriptor (TD), which can be carried by the application when initiating the network request. After the operating system acquires the Traffic Descriptor parameter associated with the application program and the UE acquires the URSP rule list from the network, matching a corresponding routing Descriptor RSD according to the rule evaluated by the URSP, and then selecting a data route according to a routing path represented by the RSD parameter.").
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine/implement Zhang’s teaching of network slice mapping method into Lou’s to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome the existing shortfalls of existing art in making clear how the mapping relationship between the data stream of the application program and the URSP is established and managed (Zhang; page 3, Background, third paragraph).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17, and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, appears to fail to fairly show or suggest a claim invention of base claims 1, 8, and 16 and further limits with novel and unobvious limitations of "routing, based on the slice configuration and by using the one or more slices, second slice traffic between a third device and the network, the first device and the third device having a second data connection," as recited in claim 2; "wherein the second device is pre-associated with a first slice of the one or more slices based on the subscription," as recited in claims 3-4; "routing, based on the slice configuration and by using the one or more slices, second slice traffic between a third device and the network, wherein the third device is pre-associated with a second slice of the one or more slices based on the subscription, and wherein the first slice traffic is routed by using a first slice while the second slice traffic is routed by using a second slice," as recited in claim 5; "wherein the first device is a relay device, wherein the second device is an end device, wherein the slice configuration information indicates that “N” slices are configured for the relay device, wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the relay device, that a first slice of the “N” slices is to be used for the first slice traffic; and determining, by the relay device, that a second slice of the “N” slices is to be used for the second slice traffic," as recited in claim 6; "wherein the slice configuration information indicates a slice property for a slice of the one or more slices, wherein the slice property includes a quality of service (QOS) of the slice, and wherein the first slice traffic is routed by using the slice based on the QoS," as recited in claim 7; "wherein the second device is unassociated with the subscription, and wherein the one or more slices are configured independently of the second device," as recited in claim 9; "wherein the one or more slices include a first slice, and wherein the first slice traffic and the second slice traffic are routed by using the first slice, wherein the second slice traffic is between a third device and the network," as recited in claim 10; "wherein the first slice traffic is routed by using a first portion of the first slice, and wherein the second slice traffic is routed by using a second portion of the first slice," as recited in claim 11; "wherein the slice configuration information indicates a slice property for a slice of the one or more slices, wherein the first slice traffic is routed by using the slice based on the slice property, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: indicate, to the network based on the second data connection being established between the first device and a third device, a change to the slice property; and store updated slice configuration information indicating the change to the slice property, wherein the second slice traffic is routed between the third device and the network by using the slice based on the updated slice configuration information," as recited in claim 13; "wherein the slice configuration information indicates a first slice property for a first slice of the one or more slices and a second slice property for a second slice of the one or more slices, wherein the first slice and the second slice are configured independently of the second device, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: activate, based on the first data connection being established and the first slice property, the first slice, wherein the first slice traffic is routed by using the first slice," as recited in claim 14; "wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: cause an encryption key associated with the one or more slices and indicated by the slice configuration information to be sent to the second device, wherein the first slice traffic is encrypted based on the encryption key," as recited in claim 15; "wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: generate aggregated slice traffic by aggregating the first slice traffic and second slice traffic, wherein the second slice traffic is between a third device and the network, wherein the first slice traffic and the second slice traffic are routed by routing the aggregated slice traffic using a same slice of the one or more slices," as recited in claim 16; "wherein the operations further comprise: sending a slice update request to a server of the network, the slice update request indicating a change to the slice configuration information; and storing updated slice configuration information that is sent from the network based on the slice update request, wherein the updated slice configuration information indicates a change to the one or more slices," as recited in claim 17; "wherein the slice configuration information indicates a static configuration for the one or more slices based on at least one of the network, an access to the network, or an application," as recited in claim 19; and "wherein the operations further comprise: causing the second device to present a request of whether to use the one or more slices; and receiving, from the second device, an indication that the one or more slices are to be used, wherein the one or more slices are used for the first slice traffic based on the indication," as recited in claim 20, structurally and functionally interconnected in a manner as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Senarath et al. (US 11,039,321).
Huang (US 11,381,452).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3164. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM.
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, MICHAEL THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
/FRANK DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 September 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights