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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed June 17, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims, canceled claims 30-38, and added new claim 39.
Claims 24-29,39 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/17/26, regarding the previous 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. That rejection has been withdrawn. However a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on Young in view of Choyi, as presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-29,39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 24 for example:
Lines 8-10 recite “…first type…”, and “…second type….”. However, the difference between the two are unclear and they appear to be redundant and/or identical types since they both appear to have the same components.
Lines 8 & 10 both recite “a component”. It is unclear if these are the same or different components.
Independent claim 39 is a slight variation of claim 24 and is rejected based on the same rationale as above. Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 24 and are thus rejected based upon the same rationale.
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 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.
Claims 24,25,27-29,39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US Publication 20220124547) in view of Choyi et al (US Publication 20220217540).
In reference to claim 24, Young teaches a method performed by a communication network device hosting a network slice management function, the method comprising:
receiving a request for a network slice, the request indicating a specified end to end slice protection level (PL) for the network slice; (see at least ¶s 47,60, which teaches receiving a network slice request with an encryption requirement)
requesting a security management entity to allocate for the network slice at least: i) a first type of network component having a component PL not less than the specified slice PL and ii) a second type of network component having a component PL not less than the specified slice QPL ; (see at least ¶s 74,76, which teaches requesting allocation for the network slice including multiple network resource components with the required encryption level)
receiving, from the security management entity, information identifying at least a first network component of the first type and a second network component of the second type; (see at least ¶ 73, which teaches information identifying the network resource components)
after receiving the information from the security management entity, instantiating the network slice using at least the identified first network component and the identified second network component; (see at least ¶ 78, which teaches instantiating the network slice using the network resources).
Young fails to explicitly teach quantum protection level (QPL), and following instantiation of the network slice, obtaining information indicating at least: i) a first current component QPL of the first network component and ii) a second current component QPL of the second network component; determining that the first current component QPL is less than the second current component QPL; and as a result of determining that the first current component QPL is less than the second current component QPL, taking one or more actions if it is determined, based on comparison of the first current component QPL with a first threshold, that the first component QPL is less than the first threshold.
However, Choyi teaches network slicing based on security properties (see Choyi, at least Absrtact & Background). Choyi discloses receiving a request for a network slice and specifying a security assurance level (SAL) protection for the slice (see at least ¶s 46,69), and post quantum cryptography (PQC) which is a quantum level of protection (see at least ¶s 38,76). Choyi also discloses: instantiating the network slice utilizing allocated asset components (see at least ¶ 70); monitoring the slice performance of the components after instantiating the slice (see at least ¶ 71 lines 1-7); and determining if the MSV/protection level of the slice is below a second protection level, then taking actions on the slice based on the comparison, such as updating asset components with assets that are determined to have a higher value (see at least ¶ 54, ¶ 71 lines 8-27 & ¶s 74,75). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Choyi based on the teachings of Choyi for the purpose of mitigating security vulnerabilities by ensuring slice security according to a required levels of protection.
In reference to claim 25, Choyi teaches determining a network slice asset/component value below a threshold, and moving the service to another network slice (see at least ¶s 74-75). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Young in view of Choyi based on the rationale of claim 24 above.
In reference to claim 27, Young teaches a slice profile message containing slice information and a network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) value, and differentiator value (see Young, at least Abstract & ¶s 58-60).
In reference to claim 28, Choyi teaches periodically monitoring the slice performance based on threat levels, and determining a network slice based on an asset/component value below a threshold (see at least ¶s 71,74). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Young in view of Choyi based on the rationale of claim 24 above.
In reference to claim 29, Choyi teaches the asset/components levels are received from the assets of the network slice (see at least ¶s 68,70,71). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Young in view of Choyi based on the rationale of claim 24 above.
Claim 39 is a slight variation of the rejected claims above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al (US Publication 20220124547) in view of Choyi et al (US Publication 20220217540) in view of Obaidi et al (US Publication 20210297933).
Young fails to explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 26. However, Obaidi teaches network slice provisioning, and discloses searching for a network slice according to a requested service requirement, instantiating a found network slice, and in response to not finding a network slice the instantiating additional network slice resources according to the requirements (see Obaidi, at least Abstract, ¶s 13,14 & ¶s 58-60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Young based on the teachings of Obaidi for the purpose of ensuring slice security according to a required level of protection.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached and prior Forms 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights