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 application is a national phase application of PCT/EP2022/053693
This action is responsive to amendment filed January 2, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant responded to the previous Restriction Requirement by pointing out that this is a national phase application of PCT/EP2022/053693, and that the Unity of Invention standard should be applied. With that said, Applicant elected Group I (claims 24-29 & 38) with traversal for examination. Accordingly, Group II (claims 30-34) and Group III (claims 35-37) are withdrawn. Claims 24-29 & 38 remain pending.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 8/12/24 are acknowledged.
Election/Restriction – Unity of Invention
The previous Restriction Requirement no longer applies since this application is national stage application. Rather, the Unity of Invention standard is applied to the claims in accordance to MPEP 1893.03 and 37CFR 1.141 – 1.146.
Accordingly, it is determined that there is a Lack of Unity of the claims because:
The previous claim groupings (I, II & III) and rationale of inventive differences as outline in the Office Action dated 11/7/2025, is applied herein, but under the Unity of Invention standard. The 3 identified groups do not share a special technical feature which would form a single general inventive concept.
The Groupings are as follows:
I. Claims 24-29,38, drawn to instantiating a network slice using allocated components and operating based on component QPLs, classified in at least G06F 21/50;
II. Claims 30-34, drawn to network component resource management for allocating network components based on QPLs, classified in at least H04L 63/205; and
III. Claims 35-37, drawn to a hosting device determining and sending a component QPL, classified in at least H04L 9/0852.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/2/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the groupings relate to a single inventive concept, and share a special technical feature which is “… a component QPL being indicative of a level of security…”.
In reply, this is not found persuasive because QPL (Quantum Protection Level) is simply a generic type of cybersecurity at the quantum level. Mere mention of a cryptographic or encryption level of security is hardly a special technical feature that is unique or contributes over the prior art. Furthermore, QPL plays an ancillary role in the claims and can be replaced with any other type/level of cybersecurity; It can even be replaced with a generic data type. Each of the 3 groups (as shown above) are drawn to different inventions which are different in their functionality, structure and scope.
Therefore the Lack of Unity designation is deemed proper and remains.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 24,25,28,29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choyi et al (US Publication 20220217540).
In reference to claim 24, Choyi teaches a method for operating a network slice management function configured to manage a network slice of a cellular network, the method performed by a communication network device hosting the network slice management function, the method comprising:
receiving a request for a network slice, the request including a specified end-to-end slice quantum protection level (QPL) for the network slice; (see at least ¶s 46,69, which teaches receiving a request for a network slice and specifying a security assurance level (SAL) protection for the slice, and see at least ¶s 38,76, which teaches post quantum cryptography (PQC) which is a quantum level of protection)
requesting, from a security management entity of the cellular network, allocation of network components having component QPLs at least equal to the specified slice QPL, a component QPL being indicative of a level of security, against an attack operated by a quantum computer, provided to the network component by quantum-resistant technology when the network component is using the quantum-resistant technology; receiving, from the security management entity, information identifying allocated network components; (see at least ¶ 70 lines 1-37 and ¶ 71 lines 10-13, which teaches a slice orchestrating platform (SOP) which is equivalent to the security management entity, where the SOP based on the security level/QPL, utilizes a template to request allocation of resources that are sufficient to meet the required security level and protect against an attack. The SOP identifies the asset components required for the security level)
instantiating the network slice using network components of the allocated network components; (see at least ¶ 70 lines 38-43, which teaches instantiating the network slice utilizing the allocated asset components)
following instantiation of the network slice, determining a current slice QPL of the network slice; (see at least ¶ 54 lines 1-4 and ¶ 71 lines 1-7, which teaches monitoring the slice performance after instantiating the slice) and
performing one of the following depending on the determined current slice QPL: no action required; perform active monitoring of the network slice and start actions to update network slice components when the current slice QPL is below a threshold slice QPL value; inform a service provider requesting the network slice that the current network slice QPL is less than the specified slice QPL; or stop operation of the network slice and move a service using the network slice to another slice having a slice QPL at least equal to the specified slice QPL. (see at least ¶ 54 lines 5-20 and ¶ 71 lines 8-27, which teaches performing active monitoring of the slice, and if the MSV/value of the slice is below a threshold value, then updating the slice asset components with assets that are determined to have a higher value)
In reference to claim 25, Choyi teaches receiving information identifying the asset/component values of the allocated resources, and determining a network slice based on an asset/component value below a threshold (see at least ¶s 54,71,74).
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).
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).
Claim 38 is a slight variation of the rejected claims above, and is therefore rejected based on 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.
Claim 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choyi et al (US Publication 20220217540) in view of Obaidi et al (US Publication 20210297933).
Choyi 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 Choyi based on the teachings of Obaidi for the purpose of ensuring slice security according to a required level of protection.
Claim 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choyi et al (US Publication 20220217540) in view of Young et al (US Publication 20220124547).
Choyi fails to explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 27. However, Young teaches network slice management and discloses 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). 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 Young for the purpose of ensuring a level of protection from a particular security attack.
Conclusion
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 Form 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
March 10, 2026