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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 10, 2025 was not filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits, but it does comply with 37 CFR 1.97(a), since the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(b) or 37 CFR 1.97(c) and they have therefore been considered by the Examiner—since the fee was provided under 37 CFR 1.97(e) on September 24, 2025.
Amendment
This Final Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on February 6, 2023 as modified by the preliminary amendment filed on June 5, 2025, in which claims 1-18 were canceled and in which new claims 19 to 38 were added, and the amendment filed on September 24, 2025, in which claims 21 and 30 are canceled and in which the remaining claims, except for claims 23 and 32 are amended. Claims 19, 20, 22 to 29, and 31 to 38 are therefore pending in the present application.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 20, 25, 28, 29, 34, and 38 for various informalities are withdrawn in view of the amendments to these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections Under § 112(b)
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.
Claim 28 and its dependent claims 29 and 31-36 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.
As regards Section 112(b), claim 28, as amended, recites the step of “receiving, by a base station from a base station, a first message”. In this regard, the receiving clause of claim 28 is confusingly and poorly written, so that it does not define the claimed subject matter with any clarity or precision, and since there is no support in the specification for this step, as presented. In particular, it is believed that it should recite “receiving, by the UE from a base station, a first message”. Claim 28 and its dependent claims have been analyzed based on this understanding. Correction is required.
Claims 29 and 31 to 36 depend from claim 28, and they are therefore rejected for the same reasons as their base claim 28 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Therefore, claims 28, 29, and 31-36 are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 19, 20, 22, 23, 27-29, 31, 32, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over EP 3 512 272 A1 to Sivavakeesar et al. (“the Sivavakeesar reference”), in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,741 to Luo et al. (“the Luo reference”), for the following reasons.
Independent claim 19, as amended, is directed to a “method of wireless communication at a base station”.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the following:
[A] user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station. A processor determines at least one network slice to which the paging message pertains based on the received paging message. The disclosure further relates to a UE comprising a receiver for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The information includes for each network slice a shortened network slice ID identifying the respective network slice and includes mapping information defining a mapping between the shortened network slice ID and a full network slice ID. A processor determines a network slice and the corresponding full network slice ID and further determines the corresponding shortened network slice ID based on the received mapping information. A transmitter transmits a data transmission preparation message to the base station that comprises the determined shortened network slice ID.
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference (at paragraph [0001]) discloses the following:
[0001] The present disclosure is directed to methods, devices and articles in communication systems, such as 3GPP communication systems.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses a “method of wireless communication at a base station”.
Claim 19 recites the further limitation of “generating, by the base station, a first message collectively indicating a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell of the base station and a set of priorities usable by a user equipment (UE) when performing cell selection, the set of priorities defining priorities for a plurality of frequencies”. That is, the base station generates a first message that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station, and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) the following:
[0059] The following key principles apply for support of Network Slicing in NG-RAN:
. . . .
Slice Availability
Some slices may be available only in part of the network. Awareness in the NG-RAN of the slices supported in the cells of its neighbours may be beneficial for inter-frequency mobility in connected mode. It is assumed that the slice availability does not change within the UE's registration area.
The NG-RAN and the 5GC are responsible to handle a service request for a slice that may or may not be available in a given area. Admission or rejection of access to a slice may depend by factors such as support for the slice, availability of resources, support of the requested service by NG-RAN.
Support for UE associating with multiple network slices simultaneously
In case a UE is associated with multiple slices simultaneously, only one signalling connection is maintained and for intra-frequency cell reselection, the UE always tries to camp on the best cell. For inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated priorities can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps.
Granularity of slice awareness
Slice awareness in NG-RAN is introduced at PDU session level, by indicating the S-NSSAI corresponding to the PDU Session, in all signalling containing PDU session resource information.
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
The Abstract discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a
paging message from a base station, and that the UE receiver is for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The Abstract further discloses that a processor (of the UE) determines at least one network slice to which the paging message (received at the UE from the base station) pertains based on the paging message received by the UE (from the base station).
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) that for inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated priorities—a set of priorities—can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps (frequency used by the UE of the possible frequencies)—so that the set of priorities define priorities for the frequencies.
That is, the base station generates a first message—the paging message—that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices—plurality of network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station, and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies.
Accordingly, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of claim 19 of “generating, by the base station, a first message collectively indicating a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell of the base station and a set of priorities usable by a user equipment (UE) when performing cell selection, the set of priorities defining priorities for a plurality of frequencies”.
Claim 19, as amended, recites the further limitation of “transmitting, by the base station, the first message to the UE”.
As explained above, the Abstract discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message—a first message—from a base station. Accordingly, the base station transmits the paging message—the first message—to the UE.
The Sivavakeesar reference therefore discloses the further limitation of “transmitting, by the base station, the first message to the UE”.
Claim 19, as amended, recites the further limitations of “receiving, by the base station, a request message from the UE after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices”, and “in response to receiving the request message, transmitting, by the base station, to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices”.
While the Sivavakeesar reference may not specifically teach these further underlined limitations of claim 19, claim 1 of the secondary Luo reference discloses the following:
A network slice . . . method, comprising:
receiving, by a radio access network (RAN) device [(a RAN device can be a base station)], a first message, wherein the first message comprises identifiers of one or more first network slices, and the identifiers of the one or more first network slices are the same as identifiers that are of the one or more first network slices and that are comprised in a first non-access stratum (NAS) request message sent by a terminal device [(a terminal device can be a UE)] to a core network (CN) device by using the RAN device [(a RAN device can be a base station)]; and
sending, by the RAN device [(a RAN device can be a base station)], a second message to the terminal device [(a terminal device can be a UE)], wherein the second message comprises network slice . . . information . . . .
Still further, the Luo reference discloses (at col. 21, line 30 to col. 22, line 5), how the base station supports a network slice, as follows:
For example, when the first NAS request message is a registration request message, the third request message is an initial context setup request (initial context setup request) message, and the first NAS response message is a registration accept (registration accept) message. Optionally, the first NAS response message includes allowed NSSAI. In addition to the first NAS response message, the network slice identifier included in the third request message is allowed NSSAI. Optionally, the CN device determines a corresponding RAT/frequency selection priority (RAT/Frequency Selection Priority, RFSP) based on a network slice identifier (requested NSSAI) requested by the terminal device, and sends an index corresponding to the RFSP to the RAN device. For example, for a registration procedure, it is assumed that an AMF performs redirection decision-making. For example, UE requests a network slice #2, but a current base station supports a network slice #1. It is assumed that the network slice #1 is on a carrier frequency #1, and the network slice #2 is on a carrier frequency #2. In this case, allowed NSSAI provided by the AMF is the network slice #1. According to a current 3GPP standard, an RFSP index included by the AMF in an NG interface message can only be an RFSP index corresponding to the network slice #1. In a possible implementation, the AMF may determine the RFSP index based on the requested NSSAI and a subscribed RFSP index, a locally configured operator policy, or a context of the terminal device, and send the RFSP index to the RAN device by using an NGAP interface message (for example, a downlink NAS transport (downlink NAS transport) message), and may further send the requested NSSAI to the RAN device. In another possible implementation, the AMF determines, based on both the allowed NSSAI and the requested NSSAI, an RFSP index corresponding to a network slice, and sends S-NSSAI and the corresponding RFSP index to the RAN device by using the NG interface message, and may further send the requested NSSAI to the RAN device. To be specific, the AMF may send each piece of S-NSSAI in the allowed NSSAI and the requested NSSAI, and a corresponding RFSP index to the RAN device. In other words, the allowed NSSAI, an RFSP index corresponding to the allowed NSSAI, and an RFSP index corresponding to the requested NSSAI are sent to the RAN device.
Furthermore, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]), the following:
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
That is, the UE sends an Initial Context Setup Request message to the base station, which necessarily and inherently sends an Initial Context Setup Complete message to the UE, so that the UE can communicate with the network—by using a slice for which resources are being requested.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses or at least suggests the limitations of receiving a request message from the UE, and in response to the request message, transmitting to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for one or more network slices.
Also, the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference discloses or at least suggests the further limitations of “receiving, by the base station, a request message from the UE after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices”, and “in response to receiving the request message, transmitting, by the base station, to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses [at paragraph [0059], the following:
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
That is, the UE sends an Initial Context Setup Request message to the base station, which necessarily and inherently sends an Initial Context Setup Complete message to the UE, so that the UE can communicate with the network—by using a slice for which resources are being requested.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses or at least suggests the limitations of receiving a request message from the UE, and in response to the request message, transmitting to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for one or more network slices.
Also, the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference discloses or at least suggests the further limitations of “receiving, by the base station, a request message from the UE after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices”, and “in response to receiving the request message, transmitting, by the base station, to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices”.
The Sivavakeesar and Luo references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing messages that include information about priorities for selecting network slices . Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary Luo reference for including the capability of providing (receiving at the base station from the UE and/or transmitting from the base station to the UE) messages regarding information of no support or network support for one or more network slices.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary Sivavakeesar reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the secondary Luo reference, so as to include the capability of providing (receiving at the base station from the UE and/or transmitting from the base station to the UE) messages regarding information of no support or network support for one or more network slices.
Accordingly, claim 19, as amended, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference, in view of the Luo reference.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19, and it recites the further limitation in which the “first message includes a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0119]) that the “gNB [which is a base station]” (which transmits the paging message) “can return an RRC connection reject message to the UE”—as the paging message, and that this “slice-specific admission control is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 12”. It is understood that a paging message can include an RRC connection reject message, since the paging process is designed around the Paging Control Channel (PCCH). That is, the RRC connection reject message is a paging message.
That is, the gNB—which is a base station—transmits a paging message, which includes an RRC message, to the UE.
The Sivavakeesar reference therefore discloses the further limitation of “transmitting” the “first message” that “includes a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message”.
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claim 19, and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 22 depends from claim 19, and it recites the further limitations in which [A] “the first message collectively indicates one or more neighboring cells that support at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices” or [B] “the first message collectively indicates that the one or more neighboring cells support a plurality of network slices of the set of one or more network slices”.
Since claim 22 is in the form of [A] or [B], the claim is satisfied if either limitation [A] or [B] is established.
In this regard, claim 1 of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses a UE having a receiver (UE) that receives a paging message from a base station, which controls a radio cell of a mobile communication system in which the UE is located, and a processor that determines at least one of a plurality of network slices to which the received paging message pertains.
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0019]), in the description of Figure 7) a UE connected to a base station (gNB1) and having neighboring cells.
That is, the paging message indicates a radio cell (which has neighboring cells, as disclosed in the description of Figure 7 at paragraph [0019]) that supports “at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices” that pertains to the received paging message.
Accordingly, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitations in which [A]
“the first message collectively indicates one or more neighboring cells that support at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices”.
Claim 22 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claim 19, and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 23 depends from claim 19, and recites the further limitation of “transmitting, to the UE, an additional message indicating the set of priorities”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0111]) that the RRCConnectionRelease message—which can be an additional message—is provided to the UE, and it includes frequency priority lists (as specifically disclosed in the image of the detailed coding).
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of “transmitting, to the UE, an additional message indicating the set of priorities”.
Claim 23 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claim 19, and for
the foregoing reasons.
Claim 27 depends from claim 19, and recites the further limitation in which the “set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell”.
In this regard, and as explained with respect to claim 19, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a UE receiver is for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The Abstract further discloses that a processor (of the UE) determines at least one network slice to which the paging message (received at the UE from the base station) pertains based on the paging message received by the UE (from the base station).
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) that for inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated priorities—a set of priorities—can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps (frequency used by the UE of the possible frequencies)—so that the set of priorities define priorities for the frequencies.
That is, the base station generates a first message—the paging message—that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices—plurality of network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station, and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies. It therefore necessarily follows that the set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the plurality of network slices.
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation in which the “set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell”.
Claim 27 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claim 19 and for the foregoing reasons.
Independent claim 28, as amended, is to a “method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE)”.
The Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the following: [A] “user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station”, and paragraph [0001] discloses “methods, devices and articles in communication systems, such as 3GPP communication systems ”
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses a “method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE)”.
Claim 28, as amended, recites the further limitation of “receiving, by a base station from a base station, a first message”. That is, the base station transmits or sends a first message to a UE—which receives the first message from the base station.
As explained above as to the rejections under Section 112(b), claim 28, as amended, recites the step of “receiving, by a base station from a base station, a first message”. In this regard, the receiving clause of claim 28 is confusingly and poorly written, so that it does not define the claimed subject matter with any clarity or precision, and since there is no support in the specification for this step, as presented. In particular, it is believed that it should recite “receiving, by a UE from a base station, a first message”. Claim 28 and its dependent claims have been analyzed based on this understanding.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the following:
[A] user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station. A processor determines at least one network slice to which the paging message pertains based on the received paging message. The disclosure further relates to a UE comprising a receiver for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. . . .
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the limitation of “receiving, by a UE from a base station, a first message”—the paging message.
Claim 28 recites the further limitation of “processing” the “first message”.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the following:
[A] user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station. A processor determines [(or processes)] at least one network slice to which the paging message pertains based on the received paging message. The disclosure further relates to a UE comprising a receiver for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. . . .
That is, the processor is used for processing the paging message—the first message—to determine at least one network slice to which the processed paging message pertains based on the paging message.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the limitation of “processing the first message”.
Claim 28 recites the further limitation of the “first message collectively indicating” a “set of one or more network slices supported by a cell”, and a “set of priorities for a plurality of frequencies”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) the following:
[0059] The following key principles apply for support of Network Slicing in NG-RAN:
. . . .
Slice Availability
Some slices may be available only in part of the network. Awareness in the NG-RAN of the SLICES SUPPORTED IN THE CELLS of its neighbours may be beneficial for inter-frequency mobility in connected mode. It is assumed that the slice availability does not change within the UE's registration area.
The NG-RAN and the 5GC are responsible to handle a service request for a slice that may or may not be available in a given area. Admission or rejection of access to a slice may depend by factors such as support for the slice, availability of resources, support of the requested service by NG-RAN.
Support for UE associating with multiple network slices simultaneously
In case a UE is associated with multiple slices simultaneously, only one signalling connection is maintained and for intra-frequency cell reselection, the UE always tries to camp on the best cell. For inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated priorities can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps.
Granularity of slice awareness
Slice awareness in NG-RAN is introduced at PDU session level, by indicating the S-NSSAI corresponding to the PDU Session, in all signalling containing PDU session resource information.
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
The Abstract discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station, and that the UE receiver is for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The Abstract further discloses that a processor (of the UE) determines at least one network slice to which the paging message (received at the UE from the
base station) pertains based on the paging message received by the UE (from the base station).
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) that for inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated frequency priorities—a set of priorities—can be used by the UE to control the frequency on which the UE camps (frequency priorities used by the UE of the possible frequencies)—so that the set of priorities is used by the UE and defines priorities for the frequencies.
That is, the base station generates a first message—the paging message—that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices—plurality of network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station, and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies.
Accordingly, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of the “first message collectively indicating a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell and a set of priorities for a plurality of frequencies”.
Claim 28 recites the further limitation of “applying, by the UE, the set of priorities, the set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell”. That is the UE uses or applies the frequency priorities, and the set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell.
In this regard, and as explained with respect to claim 19, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a UE receiver is for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The Abstract further discloses that a processor of the UE processes the paging message to determine at least one network slice to which the paging message (received at the UE from the base station) pertains based on the paging message received by the UE (from the base station).
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) that for inter-
frequency cell reselection, dedicated frequency priorities—a set of priorities—can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps (frequency used by the UE of the possible frequencies)—so that the set of priorities define priorities for the frequencies.
That is, the base station generates a first message—the paging message—that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices—a plurality of network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station—as provided in paragraph [0059], and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies. It therefore necessarily follows that the set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the plurality of network slices.
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of “applying, by the UE, the set of priorities”, and “set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell”.
Claim 28 recites the further limitation of “performing, by the UE, a cell selection procedure using at least one of the set of priorities”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses [at paragraph [0059]: “Support for UE associating with multiple network slices simultaneously”, in which for “intra-frequency cell reselection, the UE always tries to camp on the best cell”, and for “inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated [frequency] priorities can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps”. That is, the UE performs a cell selection (reselection) procedure using the frequency priorities.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of “performing, by the UE, a cell selection procedure using at least one of the set of priorities”.
Claim 28, as amended, recites the further limitations of “transmitting, by the UE to the base station, a request message after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices”, and “receiving, by the UE from the base station, a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices”.
While the Sivavakeesar reference may not specifically teach these further underlined limitations of claim 28, claim 1 of the secondary Luo reference discloses the following:
A network slice . . . method, comprising:
receiving, by a radio access network (RAN) device [(a RAN device can be a base station)], a first message, wherein the first message comprises identifiers of one or more first network slices, and the identifiers of the one or more first network slices are the same as identifiers that are of the one or more first network slices and that are comprised in a first non-access stratum (NAS) request message sent by a terminal device [(a terminal device can be a UE)] to a core network (CN) device by using the RAN device [(a RAN device can be a base station)]; and
sending, by the RAN device [(a RAN device can be a base station)], a second message to the terminal device [(a terminal device can be a UE)], wherein the second message comprises network slice . . . information . . . .
Still further, the Luo reference discloses (at col. 21, line 30 to col. 22, line 5), how the base station supports a network slice, as follows:
For example, when the first NAS request message is a registration request message, the third request message is an initial context setup request (initial context setup request) message, and the first NAS response message is a registration accept (registration accept) message. Optionally, the first NAS response message includes allowed NSSAI. In addition to the first NAS response message, the network slice identifier included in the third request message is allowed NSSAI. Optionally, the CN device determines a corresponding RAT/frequency selection priority (RAT/Frequency Selection Priority, RFSP) based on a network slice identifier (requested NSSAI) requested by the terminal device, and sends an index corresponding to the RFSP to the RAN device. For example, for a registration procedure, it is assumed that an AMF performs redirection decision-making. For example, UE requests a network slice #2, but a current base station supports a network slice #1. It is assumed that the network slice #1 is on a carrier frequency #1, and the network slice #2 is on a carrier frequency #2. In this case, allowed NSSAI provided by the AMF is the network slice #1. According to a current 3GPP standard, an RFSP index included by the AMF in an NG interface message can only be an RFSP index corresponding to the network slice #1. In a possible implementation, the AMF may determine the RFSP index based on the requested NSSAI and a subscribed RFSP index, a locally configured operator policy, or a context of the terminal device, and send the RFSP index to the RAN device by using an NGAP interface message (for example, a downlink NAS transport (downlink NAS transport) message), and may further send the requested NSSAI to the RAN device. In another possible implementation, the AMF determines, based on both the allowed NSSAI and the requested NSSAI, an RFSP index corresponding to a network slice, and sends S-NSSAI and the corresponding RFSP index to the RAN device by using the NG interface message, and may further send the requested NSSAI to the RAN device. To be specific, the AMF may send each piece of S-NSSAI in the allowed NSSAI and the requested NSSAI, and a corresponding RFSP index to the RAN device. In other words, the allowed NSSAI, an RFSP index corresponding to the allowed NSSAI, and an RFSP index corresponding to the requested NSSAI are sent to the RAN device.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses [at paragraph [0059], the following:
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
That is, the UE sends an Initial Context Setup Request message to the base station, which necessarily and inherently sends an Initial Context Setup Complete message to the UE, so that the UE can communicate with the network—by using a slice for which resources are being requested.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses or at least suggests the limitations of receiving a request message from the UE, and in response to the request message, transmitting to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for one or more network slices.
Also, the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference discloses or at least suggests the further limitations of “transmitting, by the UE to the base station, a request message after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices”, and “receiving, by the UE from the base station, a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices”.
Furthermore, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]), the following
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
That is, the UE sends—transmits—an Initial Context Setup Request message to the base
station, which necessarily and inherently sends from the base station an Initial Context Setup Complete message to the UE, so that the UE can communicate with the network—by using a slice for which resources are being requested.
The Sivavakeesar and Luo references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing messages that include information about priorities for selecting network slices . Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary Luo reference for including the capability of providing (receiving at the base station from the UE and/or transmitting from the base station to the UE) messages regarding information of no support or network support for one or more network slices.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary Sivavakeesar reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the secondary Luo reference, so as to include the capability of providing (receiving at the base station from the UE and/or transmitting from the base station to the UE) messages regarding information of no support or network support for one or more network slices.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference discloses or at least suggests the further limitations of “transmitting, by the UE to the base station, a request message after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices”, and “receiving, by the UE from the base station, a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices”.
Accordingly, claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 29 depends from claim 28, and, like claim 20, it recites the further limitation in which the “first message includes a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0119]) that the “gNB [which is a base station]” (which transmits the paging message) “can return an RRC connection reject message to the UE”—as the paging message, and that this “slice-specific admission control is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 12”. It is understood that a paging message can include an RRC connection reject message, since the paging process is designed around the Paging Control Channel (PCCH). That is, the RRC connection reject message is a paging message.
Accordingly, claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claims 28 and 20.
Claim 31 depends from claim 28, and like claim 22, it recites the further limitations in which [A] “the first message collectively indicates one or more neighboring cells that support at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices” or [B] “the first message collectively indicates that the one or more neighboring cells support a plurality of network slices in the set of one or more network slices”.
Since claim 31 is in the form of [A] or [B], the claim is satisfied if either limitation [A] or [B] is established.
Accordingly, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitations in which [A] “the first message collectively indicates one or more neighboring cells that support at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices” for the same reasons as claim 22.
Claim 31 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claims 28 and 22, and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 32 depends from claim 31, and analogous to the limitations of claim 23, it recites the further limitation of “receiving, from the base station, an additional message indicating the set of priorities”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0111]) that the RRCConnectionRelease message—which can be an additional message—is transmitted by the base station to the UE, and it includes frequency priority lists (as specifically disclosed in the image of the detailed coding at paragraph [0111]).
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of “receiving, from the base station, an additional message indicating the set of priorities”.
Claim 32 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claims 31 and 28, and for the foregoing reasons.
Independent claim 37 is to a “network entity” comprising: “at least one processor”, and a “computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, responsive to execution by the at least one processor, direct the network entity to perform a method for communicating with a user equipment (UE) located in a coverage area of a cell associated with a base station”, in which the method comprises steps like those of claim 19.
In this regard, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the following:
[A] user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station. A processor determines at least one network slice to which the paging message pertains based on the received paging message. The disclosure further relates to a UE comprising a receiver for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The information includes for each network slice a shortened network slice ID identifying the respective network slice and includes mapping information defining a mapping between the shortened network slice ID and a full network slice ID. A processor determines a network slice and the corresponding full network slice ID and further determines the corresponding shortened network slice ID based on the received mapping information. A transmitter transmits a data transmission preparation message to the base station that comprises the determined shortened network slice ID.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0146]) the following:
[0146] [The] various embodiments may also be implemented by . . . software modules, which are executed by a processor or directly in hardware. Also a combination of software modules and a hardware implementation may be possible. The software modules may be stored on any kind of computer readable storage media, for example RAM, EPROM, EEPROM, flash memory, registers, hard disks, CD-ROM, DVD, etc. It should be further noted that the individual features of the different embodiments may individually or in arbitrary combination be subject matter to another embodiment.
A network entity in a cellular system may include a UE. Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses a “network entity” comprising: “at least one processor”, and a “computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, responsive to execution by the at least one processor, direct the network entity to perform a method for communicating with a user equipment (UE) located in a coverage area of a cell associated with a base station”.
As explained with respect to claim 19, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the method of claim 19.
Claim 37 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 38 depends from claim 37, and it recites the further limitation in which the “first message includes a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0119]) that the “gNB [which is a base station]” (which transmits the paging message) “can return an RRC connection reject message to the UE”—as the paging message, and that this “slice-specific admission control is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 12”. It is understood that a paging message can include an RRC connection reject message, since the paging process is designed around the Paging Control Channel (PCCH). That is, the RRC connection reject message is a paging message.
The Sivavakeesar reference therefore discloses the further limitation of “transmitting” the “first message” that “includes a dedicated radio resource control (RRC) message”.
Accordingly, claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference for the same reasons as claim 37, and for the foregoing reasons.
Claims 24, 25, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference, in view of the Luo reference, in view of 3GPP TS 38.304 V16.1.0; 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) procedures in Idle mode and RRC Inactive state (Release 16) (2020-07) (“the 3GPP reference”), and in view of the effective admission in paragraph [0036] of the instant specification and each of the priority provisional applications (63/061,131 and 63/061,619) filed on August 5, 2020 as to the 3GPP reference that published at least by July 2020.
Claim 24 depends from claim 23, and recites the further limitation in which the “first
message or the additional message include an area-specific tag value that indicates the set of priorities”.
As explained with respect to base claim 23, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of “transmitting, to the UE, an additional message indicating the set of priorities”.
Still further, the instant specification discloses (at paragraph [0036]) the following:
[0036] In either case (index-based or tag-based sets of frequency priorities), the UE102 can use the indicated set of frequency priorities during cell reselection. [The] UE102 may be more likely to reselect to a cell that supports a high-priority frequency, according to the set of frequency priorities indicated by the index or geographic tag value, as specified in the current specification (3GPP TS 38.304).
As regards the primary Sivavakeesar reference, it apparently may not explicitly disclose the further limitation of claim 24.
It is noted, however, that the instant specification refers to the current specification of 3GPP TS 38.304. While the instant specification was filed on February 6, 2023, each of the priority provisional applications (63/061,131 and 63/061,619) filed on August 5, 2020 included the same paragraph [0036]. Still further, the current specification of 3GPP TS 38.304 would have included GPP TS 38.304 V16.1.0 – 2020-07 (which was public as of July 2020—and prior to the provisional application priority filing dates of August 5, 2020).
Accordingly, the statement in paragraph [0036] effectively represents an admission (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) that its subject matter was known at least as of the filing of the instant specification—and its provisional priority applications.
Thus, as to claim 24, the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include an area-specific tag value that indicates the set of priorities” was not novel subject matter, since it was disclosed based on the 3GPP reference and the statement in paragraph [0036] that effectively represents an admission (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) that its subject matter was known at least as of the filing of the instant specification—and its provisional priority applications.
Accordingly, the 3GPP reference together with the Applicants’ effective admission, as explained above, discloses the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include an area-specific tag value that indicates the set of priorities”.
The Sivavakeesar and Luo references and the 3GPP reference are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing procedures for requesting slice support information. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ effective admission regarding the 3GPP reference for including the capability of providing procedures for requesting slice support information, so as to facilitate selection of cells, based on priorities and/or network slices, in a cellular network.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary Sivavakeesar and Luo references, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference, so as to include the capability of providing procedures for requesting slice support information, so as to facilitate selection of cells, based on priorities and/or network slices, in a cellular network.
Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons as its base claims 23 and 19, and for the
foregoing further reasons.
Claim 24 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference.
Claim 25 depends from claim 24, and it recites the further limitation in which the “area-specific tag value” is [A] “a tracking area code (TAC)”, [B] “a radio access network (RAN) area code”, [C] “a list of cells”, or [D] “local area data network (LADN) information”.
Since claim 25 recites a limitation in the form of [A], [B], [C], or [D], establishing any one of the elements [A]-[D] satisfies the claim limitation.
The instant specification refers to “geographic tag values” at paragraphs [0035], [0036], and [0118], but nowhere refers to “area-specific tag values”. It is noted that the Substitute Specification filed on June 5, 2025 does refer to “area-specific tag values” at paragraphs [0165] and [0208].
Accordingly, unless “geographic” specifically corresponds to “area-specific”, the Substitute Specification has added new matter, namely, “area-specific tag values”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0050]) that network slices are deployed in Tracking Areas—which inherently and necessarily have an associated code, so that the Sivavakeesar reference discloses Tracking Area Codes (TACs)—or geographic tag values.
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation in which the “area-specific tag value” is [A] “a tracking area code (TAC)”.
The Sivavakeesar and 3GPP references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed
subject matter since they both concern providing “a tracking area code (TAC)”. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ effective admission regarding the 3GPP reference for including the capability of providing “a tracking area code (TAC)”.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference, so as to include the capability of providing “a tracking area code (TAC)”.
Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as its base claims 24, 23 and 19, and for the foregoing further reasons.
Claim 25 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference.
Claim 33 depends from claim 32, and like claim 24, it recites the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include an area-specific tag value that indicates the set of priorities”.
As explained with respect to base claim 32, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation of “receiving, from the base station, an additional message indicating the set of priorities”.
Still further, the instant specification discloses (at paragraph [0036]) the following:
[0036] In either case (index-based or tag-based sets of frequency priorities), the UE102 can use the indicated set of frequency priorities during cell reselection. [The] UE102 may be more likely to reselect to a cell that supports a high-priority frequency, according to the set of frequency priorities indicated by the index or geographic tag value, as specified in the current specification (3GPP TS 38.304).
As regards the Sivavakeesar and Luo references, they apparently may not explicitly disclose the further limitation of claim 33.
It is noted, however, that the instant specification refers to the current specification of 3GPP TS 38.304. While the instant specification was filed on February 6, 2023, each of the priority provisional applications (63/061,131 and 63/061,619) filed on August 5, 2020 included the same paragraph [0036]. Still further, the current specification of 3GPP TS 38.304 would have included GPP TS 38.304 V16.1.0 – 2020-07 (which was public as of July 2020—and prior to the provisional application priority filing dates of August 5, 2020).
Accordingly, the statement in paragraph [0036] effectively represents an admission (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) that its subject matter was known at least as of the filing of the instant specification—and its provisional priority applications.
Thus, as to claim 33, the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include an area-specific tag value that indicates the set of priorities” was not novel subject matter, since it was disclosed based on the 3GPP reference and the statement in paragraph [0036] that effectively represents an admission (Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art) that its subject matter was known at least as of the filing of the instant specification—and its provisional priority applications.
Accordingly, the 3GPP reference together with the Applicants’ effective admission, as explained above, discloses the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include an area-specific tag value that indicates the set of priorities”.
The Sivavakeesar and Luo references and the 3GPP reference are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing procedures for requesting slice support information. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ effective admission regarding the 3GPP reference for including the capability of providing procedures for requesting slice support information, so as to facilitate selection of cells, based on priorities and/or network slices, in a cellular network.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference, so as to include the capability of providing procedures for requesting slice support information, so as to facilitate selection of cells, based on priorities and/or network slices, in a cellular network.
Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as its base claims 32, 31 and 28, and for the foregoing further reasons.
Claim 33 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference.
Claim 34 depends from claim 33, and, like claim 25, it recites the further limitation in which the “area-specific tag value” is [A] “a tracking area code (TAC)”, [B] “a radio access network (RAN) area
code”, [C] “a list of cells”, or [D] “local area data network (LADN) information”.
Since claim 34 recites a limitation in the form of [A], [B], [C], or [D], establishing any one of the elements [A]-[D] satisfies the claim limitation.
The instant specification refers to “geographic tag values” at paragraphs [0035], [0036], and [0118], but nowhere refers to “area-specific tag values”. It is noted that the Substitute Specification filed on June 5, 2025 does refer to “area-specific tag values” at paragraphs [0165] and [0208].
Accordingly, unless “geographic” specifically corresponds to “area-specific”, the Substitute Specification has added new matter, namely, “area-specific tag values”.
In this regard, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0050]) that network slices are deployed in Tracking Areas—which inherently and necessarily have an associated code, so that the Sivavakeesar reference discloses Tracking Area Codes (TACs)—or geographic tag values.
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation in which the “area-specific tag value” is [A] “a tracking area code (TAC)”.
The Sivavakeesar and Luo references and the 3GPP reference are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing “a tracking area code (TAC)”. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ effective admission regarding the 3GPP reference for including the capability of providing “a tracking area code (TAC)”.
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary Sivavakeesar reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the secondary 3GPP reference and the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference, so as to include the capability of providing “a tracking area code (TAC)”.
Accordingly, claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons as its base claims 33, 32, 31 and 28, and for the foregoing further reasons.
Claim 34 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the 3GPP reference, and in view of the Applicants’ admission as to the 3GPP reference.
Claims 26, 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of WO2017/140342A1 to Zee et al. (“the Zee reference”).
Claim 26 depends from claim 23, and recites the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include a set of indices that indicates the set of priorities”.
In this regard, the Zee reference discloses (at page 25, line 34 to page 26, line 33; and page 27, lines 2-5) the following:
Action 1501. The radio network node transmits, to the wireless device 10, the message comprising information indicating at least one frequency band supported by the communication network 1 . The information further indicates one or more network slices supported by respective frequency band of the at least one frequency band. The information may also indicate one or more network identities supporting each frequency band of the at least one frequency band, and each network identity defines one or more network slice supported by the network identity.
The information may indicate the one or more network slices in a list of the respective frequency band of the at least one frequency band. The information may also indicate the band priority order of the at least one frequency band for selecting to camp on. The radio network node can provide absolute priorities of different E-UTRAN frequencies or inter-RAT frequencies, for prioritization of frequency layers the UE shall camp on. These absolute priorities may be common to all wireless devices, in case of system information is used, or dedicated to a specific wireless device, in case of dedicated RRC signaling is used. If the wireless device receives dedicated priorities then these have priority over the common priorities available over system information.
The common priorities for cell reselection may be provided to the wireless device 10 in a "SystemlnformationBlockType3" and “Systemlnformation
BlockType5" messages. The dedicated priorities for cell reselection may be provided to the wireless device 10 in the "RRCConnection Release" message as part of the IdleModeMobilityControllnfo information element. The network logic for selecting which information to include in the IdleModeMobilityControllnfo information element for a specific wireless device may be based on Subscriber Profile Identity (SPID), also known as RAT/Frequency Selection Priority (RFSP) index. Therefore the SPID stored in a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) is called as Subscribed RFSP Index. MME receives the SPID from the HSS during an attach procedure of the wireless device 10 and the SPID is also stored in MME. At context setup the MME forwards the SPID to the radio network node and the radio network node prioritizes the RATs and carriers based on SPID. For roaming subscribers MME can remove or add SPID based on International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) analysis.
. . . .
As specified in 3GPP 23.401 v.13.0.0 the RFSP index is used as part of the Radio Resource Management (RRM). RRM functions are concerned with the allocation and maintenance of radio communication paths, and are performed by the radio access network. The RRM strategy in E-UTRAN may be based on user specific information.
That is, the RRCConnection Release messages include RAT/Frequency Selection Priority (RFSP) indexes (RFSP Indexes), so that the message includes indexes (indices) that indicate the priorities.
In short, the Zee reference discloses the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include a set of indices that indicates the set of priorities”.
The Sivavakeesar, Luo, and Zee references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing messages that include information about priorities for selecting network slices . Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary Zee reference for including the capability of providing “a set of indices” that “indicates the set of priorities” (of the network slices).
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sivavakeesar and Luo references, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the tertiary Zee reference, so as to include the capability of providing “a set of indices” that “indicates the set of priorities” (of the network slices).
Claim 26 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the Zee reference, for the same reasons as claims 23 and 19, and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 35 depends from claim 32, and, like claim 26, it recites the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include a set of indices that indicates the set of priorities”.
In this regard, the Zee reference discloses (at page 25, line 34 to page 26, line 33; and page 27, lines 2-5) the following:
Action 1501. The radio network node transmits, to the wireless device 10, the message comprising information indicating at least one frequency band supported by the communication network 1 . The information further indicates one or more network slices supported by respective frequency band of the at least one frequency band. The information may also indicate one or more network identities supporting each frequency band of the at least one frequency band, and each network identity defines one or more network slice supported by the network identity.
The information may indicate the one or more network slices in a list of the respective frequency band of the at least one frequency band. The information may also indicate the band priority order of the at least one frequency band for selecting to camp on. The radio network node can provide absolute priorities of different E-UTRAN frequencies or inter-RAT frequencies, for prioritization of frequency layers the UE shall camp on. These absolute priorities may be common to all wireless devices, in case of system information is used, or dedicated to a specific wireless device, in case of dedicated RRC signaling is used. If the wireless device receives dedicated priorities then these have priority over the common priorities available over system information.
The common priorities for cell reselection may be provided to the wireless device 10 in a "SystemlnformationBlockType3" and “Systemlnformation
BlockType5" messages. The dedicated priorities for cell reselection may be provided to the wireless device 10 in the "RRCConnection Release" message as part of the IdleModeMobilityControllnfo information element. The network logic for selecting which information to include in the IdleModeMobilityControllnfo information element for a specific wireless device may be based on Subscriber Profile Identity (SPID), also known as RAT/Frequency Selection Priority (RFSP) index. Therefore the SPID stored in a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) is called as Subscribed RFSP Index. MME receives the SPID from the HSS during an attach procedure of the wireless device 10 and the SPID is also stored in MME. At context setup the MME forwards the SPID to the radio network node and the radio network node prioritizes the RATs and carriers based on SPID. For roaming subscribers MME can remove or add SPID based on International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) analysis.
. . . .
As specified in 3GPP 23.401 v.13.0.0 the RFSP index is used as part of the Radio Resource Management (RRM). RRM functions are concerned with the allocation and maintenance of radio communication paths, and are performed by the radio access network. The RRM strategy in E-UTRAN may be based on user specific information.
That is, the RRCConnection Release messages include RAT/Frequency Selection Priority (RFSP) indexes (RFSP Indexes), so that the message includes indexes (indices) that indicate the priorities.
In short, the Zee reference discloses the further limitation in which the “first message or the additional message include a set of indices that indicates the set of priorities”.
The Sivavakeesar and Luo references and the Zee reference are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter since they both concern providing messages that include information about priorities for selecting network slices . Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would consider the secondary Zee reference for including the capability of providing “a set of indices” that “indicates the set of priorities” (of the network slices).
It is therefore the case that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, based on the teachings, motivations and/or suggestions of the tertiary Zee reference, so as to include the capability of providing “a set of indices” that “indicates the set of priorities” (of the network slices).
Claim 35 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the Zee reference for the same reasons as claims 32, 31 and 28, and for the foregoing reasons.
Claim 36 depends from claim 35, and, like claim 27, it recites the further limitation in which the “set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell”.
In this regard, and as explained with respect to claim 27, the Abstract of the Sivavakeesar reference discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a UE receiver is for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The Abstract further discloses that a processor (of the UE) determines at least one network slice to which the paging message (received at the UE from the base station) pertains based on the paging message received by the UE (from the base station).
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) that for inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated priorities—a set of priorities—can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps (frequency used by the UE of the possible frequencies)—so
that the set of priorities define priorities for the frequencies.
That is, the base station generates a first message—the paging message—that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices—plurality of network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station, and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies. It therefore necessarily follows that the set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the plurality of network slices.
In short, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses the further limitation in which the “set of priorities is specific to at least one network slice of the set of one or more network slices supported by the cell”.
Claim 36 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the Sivavakeesar reference in view of the Luo reference, in view of the Zee reference, for the same reasons as claims 35, 32, 31 and 28, and for the foregoing reasons.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment amended independent claim 19 (independent claims 28 and 37 have been similarly amended) as follows:
1. (Currently Amended) A method of wireless communication at a base station, the method comprising:
generating, by the base station, a first message collectively indicating a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell of the base station and a set of priorities usable by a user equipment (UE) when performing cell selection, the set of priorities defining priorities for a plurality of frequencies;
transmitting, by the base station, the first message to the UE;
receiving, by the base station, a request message from the UE after a determination that the cell of the base station does not support one of the set of one or more network slices; and
in response to receiving the request message, transmitting, by the base station, to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for the set of one or more network slices.
The Amendment Remarks (at pages 7-8) assert the following:
The amended claim requires "receiving, by the base station, a request message from the UE." The Office Action alleges "Initial Context Setup Request" of paragraph [0059] in Sivavakeesar discloses the claimed "request message." See Office Action, page 9. However, "Initial Context Setup Request" of Sivavakeesar that the Office Action alleges disclosing the claimed "request message" is received by the NG-RAN from the AMF (5GC). See figure 8.3.1.2- 1 of the 3GPP 38.413.
In addition, the amended claim requires "transmitting, by the base station, to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for the set of the one or more network slices. Fig. 8 of Sivavakeesar shows a paging message being transmitted from the BS to the UE. The Office Action equates the paging message to the claimed first message. See Office Action, page 7. Therefore, the paging message of Sivavakeesar does not disclose the claimed second message because the paging message, as identified by the Office Action, is equated to the claimed first message.
As explained at page 6 of the present Office Action, the Abstract discloses user equipment (UE) comprising a receiver for receiving a paging message from a base station, and that the UE receiver is for receiving information on a plurality of network slices. The Abstract further discloses that a processor (of the UE) determines at least one network slice to which the paging message (received at the UE from the base station) pertains based on the paging message received by the UE (from the base station).
Still further, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]) that for inter-frequency cell reselection, dedicated priorities—a set of priorities—can be used to control the frequency on which the UE camps (frequency used by the UE of the possible frequencies)—so that the set of priorities define priorities for the frequencies.
That is, the base station generates a first message—the paging message—that “collectively” indicates a set of one or more network slices—plurality of network slices, in which the slices are supported by a cell of the base station, and a set of priorities that define priorities for frequencies.
Still further, as explained at page 8 of the present Office Action, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses (at paragraph [0059]), the following:
Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice
It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE has the rights to access a network slice. Prior to receiving the Initial Context Setup Request message, the NG-RAN may be allowed to apply some provisional/local policies, based on awareness of which slice the UE is requesting access to. During the initial context setup, the NG-RAN is informed of the slice for which resources are being requested.
That is, the UE sends an Initial Context Setup Request message to the base station, which necessarily and inherently sends an Initial Context Setup Complete message to the UE, so that the UE can communicate with the network—by using a slice for which resources are being requested.
Thus, the Sivavakeesar reference discloses or at least suggests the limitations of receiving a request message from the UE, and in response to the request message, transmitting to the UE a second message including information regarding network support for one or more network slices.
The comments at pages 7 and 8 of the Amendment Remarks do not specifically refute the logic of the foregoing explanations.
In any case, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection that are attributable to the new amendments. (See M.P.E.P. FP 7.38). While not repeated here in the Response Section, the new grounds of rejection provided above are referenced here as necessary.
In particular, as explained above, claim 19, as amended, is therefore rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the applied references, as detailed herein.
While not repeated here in the Response Section, the present Final Office Action also explains in detail why the dependent claims of claim 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the applied references, as detailed herein.
Also, while not repeated here in the Response Section, the present Final Office Action also explains in detail why independent claims 28 and 37 and their respective dependent claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the applied references, as detailed herein.
Nothing in the Amendment addresses in any manner—let alone refutes—the foregoing facts presented herein or in the prior Office Action.
In summary, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims somehow define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims are patentably distinguished from the references. Still further, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the rejections made. Further, they do not specifically explain how the amendments avoid such references or rejections.
Finally, the Amendment and Remarks do not refute any of the specific arguments, explanations, and facts presented in the Office Action.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON C. DEDITCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4780.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday at 8:00 am to 6:30 pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/Aaron C. Deditch/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
1/10/2026