Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/017,294

SERVICE ACCESS TO DISJOINT NETWORK SLICES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 20, 2023
Examiner
SAMS, MATTHEW C
Art Unit
2646
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
500 granted / 747 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+11.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.8%
-18.2% vs TC avg
§112
8.9%
-31.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 747 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed on 8/29/2025 and 2/18/2026 have been considered. Response to Amendment This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 2/13/2026. Claims 30, 33, 37 and 40 have been amended. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the Applicant’s argument in claim 30 that “none of the cited references, nor any combination thereof, teach or suggest they that in response to the first information” (Page 10), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 30 is limited to the structure and steps performed by a user equipment. The reason why an action occurs at the core network node is outside the scope of patentability when considering the structure of the user equipment. The ability/structure of the user equipment to “receive” a second message does not change based on what information is sent by the core network node. With respect to claim 37, the steps are occurring at the user equipment and the same reasoning provided above with respect to claim 30 is applicable here as well. 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. Claims 30-32, 37-39 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US-2021/0037426 hereinafter, Zhu) in view of Horn et al. (US-2019/0313239 hereinafter, Horn). Regarding claim 30, Zhu teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 6 [600] and Fig. 7 [UE]) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; (Fig. 6 [604]) and at least one processor (Fig. 6 [602]) configured to execute the instructions to: send, to a core network node (Fig. 7 [Core Network]), a first message including a first information; (Fig. 7 [710] and Page 13 [0125]) receive, from the core network node, a second message (Fig. 3 [370] and Fig. 7 [725]) including: Allowed Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (NSSAI); Configured NSSAI; (Page 9 [0088]) and a second information, (Page 14 [0132]) wherein the second information includes an indication for one or more Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) in the Configured NSSAI, the indication being whether the UE can register with the one or more S-NSSAI on demand by an application in the UE, and (Page 9 [0088], Page 14 [0132] “The core network may provide an indication that the slice B is available on-demand to the UE” and Fig. 7 [723 & 725]) wherein the indication is included in the second information in response to the first information; (The reason why this action occurs at the core network node is outside the scope of patentability when considering the structure of the user equipment) and send, to the core network node, a third message including the one or more S-NSSAI in Requested NSSAI, in a case where the application in the UE requires to use a service with the one or more S-NSSAI. (Page 9 [0084], Fig. 7 [UE can request slice B on-demand] and Page 14 [0134]) Zhu teaches that the UE radio capability information is available at the base station for determining support of on-demand registration (Page 4 [0049] and Page 13 [0129]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting a first message including a first information which indicates support for on-demand registration for a network slice. In an analogous art, Horn teaches an optimization of user equipment by sending to the base station and the AMF, user equipment radio capability signaling in a registration request message (Abstract and Fig. 5 [502]) that includes information on the ability to perform carrier aggregation (Pages 2-3 [0029]) in order to be able to support networks that have multiple slices. (Page 3 [0037]) Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Zhu after modifying it to incorporate the ability for a UE to send to the core network, radio capability information of Horn since it enables the core network to match the UEs capabilities with the service being provided to the UE from the network. (Horn Page 7 [0065-0066]) Regarding claim 31, Zhu in view of Horn teaches wherein the PDU session establishment procedure is initiated after a registration procedure of the one or more S-NSSAI is successfully completed. (Zhu Page 9 [0089]) Regarding claim 32, Zhu in view Horn teaches wherein the first information indicates that the UE supports an on-demand registration feature. (Zhu Page 4 [0049] and Page 13 [0125-0129] i.e. support for on-demand registration and Horn Fig. 5 [502] i.e. sending the support of UE capabilities to the network) Regarding claims 37-39, the limitations of claims 37-39 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 30-32. Regarding claim 44, Zhu in view of Horn teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to receive, from the core network node, a second message (Fig. 7 [725]) if the UE sends the first information to the core network node. (Zhu Fig. 7 [710]) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 33-36 and 40-43 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While sending UE radio capability information to a base station is clearly taught within Zhu (Page 13 [0129]) and to a core network is clearly taught by Horn (Fig. 5 [502]), with receiving a response including a S-NSSAI for on-demand registration being clearly taught by Zhu (Fig. 7 [725]), it is not clear the decision, occurring within the core network, to send second information (wherein the second information includes an indication for one or more Single Network Slice Selection Assistance Information (S-NSSAI) in the Configured NSSAI, the indication being whether the UE can register with the one or more S-NSSAI on demand of an application in the UE) in response to receiving first information (first information which indicates support for on-demand registration for a network slice), is disclosed in Zhu, Horn or the prior art. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST. 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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. /Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 20, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 25, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
May 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 06, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 12, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 13, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 23, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603924
ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND METHOD FOR PROCESSING IMS-BASED CALL IN ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12587868
Systems and Methods for Proxying Real Traffic for Simulation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581455
REDUCED BEAM FOR PAGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12574762
MANAGING A NETWORK SLICE PARAMETER FOR ADMISSION CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568167
System and Method of Capturing, Tracking, Composing, Analyzing and Automating Analog and Digital Interactions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+11.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 747 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month