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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-9-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10-27-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection, please note that although the claims are interpreted in view of the specification, it is improper to read limitations from the specification into the claim. The examiner recommends the applicant to add limitations from the specification paragraph 40 to the claims for proper consideration. For examination purposes, since slices are used or can be used in cells, they are associated.
Applicant submits: “The above disclosure only states that RACH resources correspond to network slices. It does not disclose that "pools are composed of network slices."; the examiner’s position is that if “the pool of RACH resources X corresponds to a network slice, e.g., A or B.” it is indicating slice information, e.g. A or B which indicates N slices. Thus, it can be said that a RACH resource pool corresponds to a network slice, and that a resource pool corresponds and/or is composed of network slices.
As to the argument: “The difference in the first slice information in claim 1 of the present application is described in claim 1 as amended, namely, it indicates N slices.”; the examiner’s position as long as the terminal receive information about a slice, it indicates N slices.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., only indicate the RACH resource pool, not the slice itself, technical effect achieved by the present application, technical problems to be solved by the present application) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In view of the arguments: “It is also impossible for the lE to use "the slices from the pool of RACH to communicate." and “Sending a random access request to "a target slice of a target cell" is different from directly initiating random access to the target gNB.”; the examiner points that the arguments fail to articulate why applicant believes that it is impossible or different. Paragraph 84 of Awada discloses that pool of RACH resource(s) to use during a handover and since pool of RACH resource(s) correspond to slice(s), it is possible for the lE to use "the slices from the pool of RACH to communicate.
The argument “D1 does not actually disclose "sending a random access request to a target slice of a target cell," because it does not disclose N slices or the target slice.” As previously stated, Awada discloses a pool of RACH resource(s) that correspond to slice(s); thereby, disclose N slices and sending a random access request to a target slice of a target cell.
Applicant argues: “Figure 10 of D1 does not disclose that the lE sends a random access request to a specific network slice.”; the examiner’s position is that Awada discloses in fig. 10 Random access and as previously stated also discloses a pool of RACH resource(s) to use during a handover and since pool of RACH resource(s) correspond to slice(s). Thereby, reading in the claimed limitation.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection of record stands.
Examiner’s Remarks
Please note that this application presents some limitations as intended use and/or associations. The examiner invites the applicant to review MPEP 2103 I.C. For example, how a data is used, does not make the data different; instead of describing the data, the limitation can be described as a step. Also, making associations with items, will fail to make the items any different. For examination purposes anything in a communication network is associated and related to a plurality of things, such as wireless signals, time, etc. The claim should focus on what the method/device is performing and/or how is achieving the desired outcome.
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 3-4, 9-10 are 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. The claims recite a relative limitation [M cells associated with the N slices] defined by another relative limitation [one slice is associated with M1 cells], it is unclear the scope of the limitation. For examination purposes both are part of a communication system; thereby, associated. The rest of the claims they include the deficiency or share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada 20220279408 in view of Gao 20230029004.
As to claim 1, Awada discloses a cell handover method performed by a terminal [UE 30] (see abstract), comprising: receiving a handover command sent by a first network node [Source gNB, source access point 20] (see fig. 5, 10, 13-15), wherein the handover command comprises first slice information (see par. 0047, 0053, 0084-0085), the first slice information indicate N slices [slices pool S51,S71], (see par. 0052-0053); and sending a random-access request to a target slice of a target cell [Target gNB, target access point 10] (see fig. 5,10, 13-15; S72), wherein the target slice is one of the slices (see par. 0087, 0103, 0114, 0118). Awada fails to disclose that N is a positive integer; however, it is obvious that the pool slices indicate N slices and if the slices exist is going to be a positive integer. Regardless, In an analogous art, Gao discloses a method performed by a terminal [UE], comprising: receiving a command sent by a first network node [RAN node], wherein the command comprises first slice information, the first slice information is used to indicate indicates N slices [400] (see par. 0195), and N is a positive integer (see par. 0009); and sending a random access procedure to a target slice of a target cell, wherein the target slice is one of the N slices (see par. 0196). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective day of the present invention that since a RACH request is a RACH procedure to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of indicating the availability of the slices; thereby, advertising the number of resources available and allowing the use of the resources.
As to claim 2, Awada discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the handover command further comprises a random-access channel (RACH) resource associated with each of the N slices, and wherein the sending a random-access request to a target slice of a target cell comprises: sending the random-access request to the target slice of the target cell based on a[n] RACH resource associated with the target slice (see par. 0087, 0103, 0114, 0118).
As to claims 3-4, Awada discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the handover command further comprises M cells associated with the N slices, the target cell is one of the M cells (see par. 0017), and wherein an association relationship between the N slices and the M cells satisfies at least one of the following: one slice is associated with M1 cells; or N1 slices are associated with one cell (see par. 0030, 0087); wherein slices associated with the M1 cells are associated with a same RACH resource, and wherein the N1 slices are associated with a same RACH resource.(see par. 0142). Awada does not explicitly recites that M is a positive integer, wherein M1 is a positive integer less than or equal to M, wherein N1 is a positive integer less than or equal to N. However, it is obvious that Awada’s handover command requires at least one cell and at least one slice; thereby, both been a positive integer equal to N and/or M. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention for the values to be positives integers for the simple purpose that the values represent the resources to be used for the communication which are required to enable the communication; thereby, allowing a successful handover.
As to claim 7, Awada discloses a cell handover processing method performed by a first network node (see abstract), comprising: sending a handover command to a terminal, wherein the handover command comprises first slice information (see par. 0047, 0053, 0084-0085), the first slice information indicate N slices [slices pool S51,S71], (see par. 0052-0053), the N slices are used for the terminal to send a random access request, and N is a positive integer (see par. 0087, 0103, 0114, 0118). Awada fails to disclose that N is a positive integer; however, it is obvious that the pool slices indicate N slices and if the slices exist is going to be a positive integer. Regardless, In an analogous art, Gao discloses a method performed by a first network node [RAN node], comprising: sending a command to a terminal [UE], wherein the command comprises first slice information, the first slice information indicates N slices [400] (see par. 0195), and N is a positive integer (see par. 0009); the N slices are used for the terminal to send a random access procedure, and N is a positive integer (see par. 0196). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective day of the present invention that since a RACH request is a RACH procedure to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of indicating the availability of the slices; thereby, advertising the number of resources available and allowing the use of the resources.
As to claim 8, Awada discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the handover command further comprises a[n] RACH resource associated with each of the N slices (see par. 0087, 0103, 0114, 0118).
As to claims 9-10, Awada discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the handover command further comprises M cells associated with the N slices (see par. 0017), and wherein an association relationship between the N slices and the M cells satisfies at least one of the following: one slice is associated with M1 cells, or N1 slices are associated with one cell (see par. 0030, 0087); wherein slices associated with the M1 cells are associated with a same RACH resource, and wherein the N1 slices are associated with a same RACH resource.(see par. 0142). Awada does not explicitly recites that M is a positive integer, wherein M1 is a positive integer less than or equal to M, wherein N1 is a positive integer less than or equal to N. However, it is obvious that Awada’s handover command requires at least one cell and at least one slice; thereby, both been a positive integer equal to N and/or M. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention for the values to be positives integers for the simple purpose that the values represent the resources to be used for the communication which are required to enable the communication; thereby, allowing a successful handover.
As to claim 17, Awada discloses a terminal [UE 30], comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program that is executable on the processor, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the terminal to perform the cell handover method according to claim 1 (see par. 0054).
As to claim 19, Awada discloses a network device [Source gNB, source access point 20], comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program that is executable on the processor, wherein the program, when executed by the processor, causes the network device to perform the cell handover processing method according to claim 7 (see par. 0053).
Claim(s) 5-6, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada in view of Gao and further in view of Yang 20210314827.
As to claims 5-6 and 18, Awada discloses the method/terminal according to claim 1/17, wherein before the receiving a handover command sent by a first network node, the method further comprises: receiving a handover measurement configuration, (see fig. 10; measurement control; par. 0022); in a case that measurement conditions are met [trigger], performing measurement based on the handover measurement configuration, and obtaining a measurement result; and sending a measurement report to a network device, wherein the measurement report carries the measurement result (see fig. 10; measurement report; par. 0022). Awada fails to disclose details about the measurements. In an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the handover measurement configuration is used to indicate second slice information to be measured [401] (see par. 0094-0098); and obtaining a measurement result [402] (see par. 0099-0102); and sending a measurement report to a network device [403], wherein the measurement report carries third slice information, and the third slice information is slice information associated with the measurement result in the second slice information. (see par. 0103, 0113); wherein the second slice information comprises any one of the followings: measured slice information; measured slice information of a first cell; and measured slice information of a first frequency, wherein the third slice information comprises at least one of the followings: slice information of a second cell; or slice information of a second frequency (see par. 0103, 0112-0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of measuring available cells and helping to select the best cell available.
As to claims 11-12, Awada discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein before the sending a handover command to a terminal, the method further comprises: sending a handover measurement configuration to the terminal (see fig. 10; measurement control; par. 0022); and receiving a measurement report sent by the terminal based on the handover measurement configuration, wherein the measurement report carries a measurement result obtained by performing measurement based on the handover measurement configuration (see fig. 10; measurement report; par. 0022). Awada fails to disclose details about the measurements. In an analogous art, Yang discloses wherein the handover measurement configuration is used to indicate second slice information to be measured [401] (see par. 0094-0098); and obtaining a measurement result [402] (see par. 0099-0102); and sending a measurement report to a network device [403], wherein the measurement report carries third slice information, and the third slice information is slice information associated with the measurement result in the second slice information. (see par. 0103, 0113); wherein the second slice information comprises any one of the followings: measured slice information; measured slice information of a first cell; and measured slice information of a first frequency, wherein the third slice information comprises at least one of the followings: slice information of a second cell; or slice information of a second frequency (see par. 0103, 0112-0113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of measuring available cells and helping to select the best cell available.
As to claims 13-14, Awada discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein before the sending a handover command [Handover Command (prepared cell list)] to a terminal [UE], the method further comprises: sending a handover request message [Handover Request (prepare)] to a second network node [Target gNB], wherein the handover request message carries a part or all of slice information in the third slice information [information on said at least one network slice] (see par. 0046); receiving a handover request response message [Handover Request Acknowledgement] sent by the second network node; and sending the handover command to the terminal [Handover Command (prepared cell list)] in a case [conditional limitation] that the handover response request message carries fourth slice information, wherein the fourth slice information comprises slice information that the second network node allows the terminal to access [first pool of random access channel resources] (see par. 0046-0047, 0049-0050), wherein the fourth slice information comprises at least one of the followings: a part or all of slice information in the slice information carried in the handover request message; or in addition to the slice information carried in the handover request message, slice information recommended by the second network node (see par. 0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached on (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647