DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/26/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The applicant has amended the following:
Claims: 1, 5, 12 and 16 have been amended.
Claims: 3-4, 6-7, 14-15 and 17-19 have not been amended.
Claims: 2, 8-11, 13 and 20 have been cancelled.
EXAMINER’S NOTE:
The examiner notes that the applicant’s current amendments have changed the scope of the claims and necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/11/26 with regards to claims 1, 3-7, 12 and 14-19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
The applicant argues that … i. Lee fails to disclose first information which includes identity information of network slide(s) of the terminal device as well as priority corresponding to the network slice(s) of the terminal device. Claim 1 clearly recites: "the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device comprises: identity information of the at least one network slice, and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device". That is, the information of the network slice(s) of the terminal includes identity information of network slide(s) and priority corresponding to the network slice(s). … Lee differs from the present application in the following aspects: a) Lee discloses that the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, but fails to disclose at least one network slice of the electronic device 101. As disclosed in paragraph [0254], the electronic device 101 being registered as an eMBB service means that the electronic device 101 will conduct the eMBB service, but Lee fails to disclose that the registration involves network slice(s) of the electronic device. b) The electronic device 101 being registered as an eMBB service does not disclose "priority" corresponding to network slice(s) of the electronic device. As disclosed in paragraph [0254], the electronic device 101 is merely registered as an eMBB service, and nowhere discloses "priority" of network slice(s) of the electronic device. ii. Lee fails to disclose adjusting the priority of a frequency point supporting network slice(s) in the network slice(s) of the terminal device or allowable network slice(s) of the terminal device. In this Office Action, it is stated that paragraph [0254] of Lee discloses the adjusting of priority. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. … Lee differs from the present application in the following aspects: a) The adjustment in the present application is based on the "first information" which includes identity information of the at least one network slice and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device, but the adjustment in Lee is based on network slice information of the neighboring cell. … However, claim 1 of the present application recites: "wherein determining, by the terminal device, the target priority of the frequency point according to the first information comprises: adjusting, by the terminal device, a target priority of a frequency point supporting a particular network slice to be a second priority". From the context of claim 1, it is clear that the adjustment step is performed according to the first information which includes identity information of network slide(s) of the terminal device as well as priority corresponding to the network slice(s) of the terminal device. b) Lee adjusts priority of a cell supporting the currently registered service of the electronic device to be high, but fails to take whether a frequency point supports a particular network slice (network slice(s) in the network slice(s) of the terminal device, or allowable network slice(s) of the terminal device) into consideration. … That is, depending on what service the electronic device is currently registered with, the electronic device adjusts a cell supporting the currently registered service to be high. But, the "cell supporting the currently registered service" cannot be equated to "a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in the at least one network slice of the terminal device or a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in at least one network slice allowable of the terminal device". iii. Murray does not remedy deficiency of Lee. … Murray at paragraph [0170] gives a scheme of how to determine a priority of a frequency, and suggests that the number of S-NSSAIs may be taken into consideration when two frequencies have same priority. Murray merely discloses comparison between priority of frequency, but this is different from the adjustment of priority of a frequency point as recited in claim 1 in the present application because this adjustment requires adjustment of priority of a frequency by a terminal device based on first information. Thus, claim 1 is patentable over any one or combination of the cited prior art references. Likewise, claims 12 and 16 recite the same or corresponding features above, and thus claims 12 and 16 are patentable. Dependent claims 3-7, 14-15 and 17-19 claim further distinguishing features, and distinguish over cited prior art cited in this Office Action for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to independent claims 1, 12 and 16 (See Pages 8-14 of Applicant’s Arguments filed on 06/11/26).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments the combination of the teachings of Lee in view of Murray together as a whole does disclose the applicant’s argued limitations as will be apparent in the following explanations provided below.
To begin with, the examiner would like to note that the applicant appears to be arguing that Lee fails to disclose identity information of the network slice of the terminal device because the cited eMBB service of Lee is not the same as a network slice.
However, this is incorrect, as Lee clearly discloses the eMBB service to be a specific slice or service type that is implemented or provided via a network slice instance and this is most evident by Lee, [0140] disclosing the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service and Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device and Lee, [0198] discloses The network slice information may be information used to select a network slice instance. The network slice information may mean NSSAI. The NSSAI may include pieces of single-NSSAI S-NSSAI. For example, NSSAI or S-NSSAI may include a slice/service type SST and slice differentiator SD. The SST may indicate a network service type, and the SD may indicate information associated with the performance of a network slice instance as can be seen in the highlighted portions of Lee, [0198], [0140] & [0367] seen below:
[0140] For example, when the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service, the service indicator 563 may be displayed as “eMBB”. The service indicator 563 may be displayed as “URLLC” or “mMTC”, depending on the type of network service received by the electronic device 101.
[0367] The processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station, and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device.
[0198] Referring to FIG. 11, in step 1105 of a method 1100, the electronic device 101 receives network slice information from a first base station 511. The network slice information may be information used to select a network slice instance. The network slice information may mean NSSAI. The NSSAI may include pieces of single-NSSAI (S-NSSAI). For example, NSSAI or S-NSSAI may include a slice/service type (SST) and slice differentiator (SD). The SST may indicate a network service type, and the SD may indicate information associated with the performance of a network slice instance.
In addition, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, Lee clearly discloses adjusting the frequency priority based on the identity of the eMBB network slice service and Lee also clearly equates frequency and cell to be interchangeable as is evident in Lee, [0254] that discloses the electronic device changes the priority information about a frequency or cell, based on the network slice information and The electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to the highest priority as can be seen in the highlighted portions of Lee, [0254] seen below:
[0254] In step 1915, the electronic device changes the priority information about the network service type or the priority information about a frequency (or cell), based on the network slice information. For example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high. The electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be the same as the priority of the serving cell or may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell. The electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to the highest priority.
Furthermore, the examiner would like to note that the applicant’s arguments against the cited references Lee (i.e. arguments reciting “Lee fails to disclose priority corresponding to the network slice(s) of the terminal device” and “The adjustment in the present application is based on the "first information" which includes identity information of the at least one network slice and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device, but the adjustment in Lee is based on network slice information of the neighboring cell”) and Murray (i.e. arguments reciting “Murray merely discloses comparison between priority of frequency, but this is different from the adjustment of priority of a frequency point as recited in claim 1 in the present application because this adjustment requires adjustment of priority of a frequency by a terminal device based on first information”) are made against each of the references alone without considering what the combination of the cited references together as a whole would teach and as such, the applicant’s arguments are against the references individually and are therefore not based on the combination of the references as a whole.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually (see MPEP 2145, Section lV).
The applicant’s arguments appears to be arguing that a single reference is required to show the entire claimed invention which is incorrect, as the guidelines for obviousness clearly indicates that a single reference is not required to disclose each and every element in the applicant’s claimed invention as can be seen in the highlighted portions of MPEP 2143, Section A, Example 2 that recites “Example 2: The claimed invention in Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004) was directed to a system which employs a screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor. The prior art (Fuller) used screw anchors for underpinning existing structural foundations. Fuller used a concrete haunch to transfer the load of the foundation to the screw anchor. The prior art (Gregory) used a push pier for underpinning existing structural foundations. Gregory taught a method of transferring load using a bracket, wherein a metal bracket transfers the foundation load to the push pier. The pier is driven into the ground to support the load. Neither reference showed the two elements of the claimed invention – screw anchor and metal bracket – used together. The court found that “artisans knew that a foundation underpinning system requires a means of connecting the foundation to the load-bearing member” … The nature of the problem to be solved – underpinning unstable foundations – as well as the need to connect the member to the foundation to accomplish this goal, would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to choose an appropriate load bearing member and a compatible attachment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use a metal bracket (as shown in Gregory) in combination with the screw anchor (as shown in Fuller) to underpin unstable foundations”.
As can be seen from MPEP 2143, Section A, Example 2 above, the claimed invention is directed towards “a screw anchor for underpinning existing foundations and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor”.
The primary reference Fuller discloses only a portion of the applicant’s claimed invention by disclosing the first component (i.e. “a screw anchor”) and a corresponding function (i.e. “for underpinning existing foundations and to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor”) and a second component (i.e. “concrete haunch”) corresponding to a second function (i.e. “to transfer the load of the foundation”) but fails to disclose the portion reciting “and a metal bracket to transfer the building load onto the screw anchor”.
The secondary reference Gregory was utilized to remedy the missing aspects of Fuller and similarly only discloses a portion of the applicant’s claimed invention by disclosing an alternative compatible second component (i.e. “a metal bracket”) and a similar corresponding function (i.e. “for underpinning existing foundations” and “to transfer the building load”).
Even though neither of the Fuller and Gregory reference discloses any of the claimed limitations in full, the court still found the combination to be obvious and concluded that given the nature of the problem to be solved or similar corresponding function, one of ordinary skill in the art would choose an appropriate and compatible component.
In this instance, the invention of Lee is modified by the teachings of Murray which combined together as a whole would read on the claimed invention.
Specifically, the primary reference Lee discloses a first component and corresponding function of an electronic device that adjusts a frequency priority based on identity information of a network slice which is clearly disclosed as is evident by the explanations and highlighted portions of Lee, [0254] seen above.
And the secondary reference Murray discloses a comparable component and corresponding function of an electronic device that adjusts a frequency priority based on identity information of a network slice and the priority of a network slice as is evident in Murray, [0170] that discloses the priority of a frequency is equal to the priority of the S-NSSAI with the highest priority on that frequency and for scenarios where two frequencies have the same priority, the number of S-NSSAIs configured with that priority may also be considered when determining the priority of a frequency, e.g. a frequency configured with x S-NSSAIs at priority P would be considered a higher priority than a frequency configured with y S-NSSAIs at priority P, assuming x>y as can be seen from the highlighted portions of Murray, [0170] seen below:
[0170] In one example, the priority of a frequency is equal to the priority of the S-NSSAI with the highest priority on that frequency. For scenarios where two frequencies have the same priority, the number of S-NSSAIs configured with that priority may also be considered when determining the priority of a frequency, e.g. a frequency configured with x S-NSSAIs at priority P would be considered a higher priority than a frequency configured with y S-NSSAIs at priority P, assuming x>y. Alternatively, the priority of a frequency may correspond to the average of the priorities of the S-NSSAIs on that frequency. And in another example, the priority of a frequency may correspond to a count of the S-NSSAIs on that frequency, e.g. a frequency where 1 S-NSSAI is configured would have a priority of 1, a frequency where 2 S-NSSAIs are configured would have a priority of 2, etc.
And as such, based on the guidelines for obviousness disclosed by the MPEP and the comparable components and functionalities of the cited art of Lee and Murray as explained above, one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize and find obvious that the combination of Lee as modified by the teachings of Murray together as a whole, would read on the applicant’s argued limitations.
Therefore, the argued limitations read upon the cited references or are written broad such that they read upon the cited references, as follows:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0037387 herein after referenced as Lee) in view of MURRAY et al. (US Patent Publication 2023/0156583 herein after referenced as Murray).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 12, Lee discloses:
A wireless communication method, comprising: and A terminal device, comprising one or more processors, and memory storing a plurality of programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the terminal device to: (Lee, Fig. 1 & [0055]-[0056] discloses the electronic device 101 (i.e. reads on terminal device) in the network environment 100 may communicate (i.e. reads on wireless communication) with an electronic device 102 via a first network 198 e.g., a short-range wireless communication network, or an electronic device 104 or a server 108 via a second network 199 e.g., a long-range wireless communication network and the electronic device 101 may include a processor 120, memory, etc. and discloses the processor 120 may execute, for example, software e.g., a program 140 to control at least one other component e.g., a hardware or software component of the electronic device 101 coupled with the processor 120, and the processor 120 may load a command or data received from another component e.g., the sensor module 176 or the communication module 190 in volatile memory 132, process the command or the data stored in the volatile memory 132; Lee, [0130] discloses the electronic device 101 may mean a terminal, user equipment UE, a mobile station, a subscriber station, a remote terminal, a wireless terminal or a user device).
determining, by a terminal device, a target priority of a frequency point according to first information, wherein the first information is used to indicate network slice related information; (Lee, [0254] discloses the electronic device (i.e. reads on by a terminal) changes the priority information (i.e. reads on determining a target priority) about a frequency (i.e. reads on of a frequency point) or cell, based on the network slice information (i.e. reads on according to first information, wherein the first information is used to indicate network slice related information); Lee, [0198] discloses the electronic device 101 receives network slice information from a first base station 511 and the network slice information may be information used to select a network slice instance and the network slice information may mean NSSAI and the NSSAI may include pieces of single-NSSAI S-NSSAI).
wherein the first information comprises information of at least one network slice of the terminal device; (Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service (i.e. reads on wherein the first information comprises information of at least one network slice of the terminal device), the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell; Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device; Lee, [0198] discloses The network slice information may be information used to select a network slice instance. The network slice information may mean NSSAI. The NSSAI may include pieces of single-NSSAI S-NSSAI. For example, NSSAI or S-NSSAI may include a slice/service type SST and slice differentiator SD. The SST may indicate a network service type, and the SD may indicate information associated with the performance of a network slice instance).
and the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device comprises: identity information of the at least one network slice, (Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, (i.e. reads on identity information of the at least one network slice) the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device).
wherein determining, by the terminal device, the target priority of the frequency point according to the first information comprises: adjusting, by the terminal device, a target priority of a frequency point (Lee, [0254] discloses the electronic device (i.e. reads on by the terminal) changes the priority information (i.e. reads on determining the target priority comprises adjusting a target priority) about a frequency (i.e. reads on of the frequency point) or cell, based on the network slice information (i.e. reads on according to first information, wherein the first information is used to indicate network slice related information)).
(Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service (i.e. reads on a particular network slice) to be higher than the priority (i.e. reads on to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority) of the serving cell (i.e. reads on of a particular point); Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device).
and the (Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service (i.e. reads on in the at least one network slice of the terminal device), the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service (i.e. reads on point supporting at least one network slice) based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell (i.e. reads on point) supporting the eMBB service (i.e. reads on supporting the particular network slice and reads on supporting at least one network slice) to be higher than the priority of the serving cell; Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in at least one network slice allowable of the terminal device”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
wherein the particular network slice comprises at least one network slice in a first network slice set, and the first network slice set is at least one network slice comprised in the information of the at least one network slice of the terminal device (Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC (i.e. reads on wherein the particular network slice comprises at least one network slice in a first network slice set, and the first network slice set is at least one network slice) through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device (i.e. reads on comprised in the information of the at least one network slice of the terminal device); Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service).
wherein the method further comprises: performing, by the terminal device, at least one of cell reselection measurement or cell reselection according to the target priority (Lee, [0263] discloses the electronic device 101 (i.e. reads on performing, by the terminal device) receives information necessary for cell reselection, from the first cell 1711 and the information necessary for cell reselection may include measurement rule information used to determine a cell measurement target and the measurement rule information may indicate the priority (i.e. reads on according to the target priority) for the cell reselection (i.e. reads on cell reselection) determined by the network to which the electronic device 101 is connected, or may include the priority determined by the network during inter-frequency measurement and intra-frequency measurement; Lee, [0107] discloses The term “camp on a cell” may mean that a UE e.g. the electronic device 101 has completed the cell selection/reselection process (i.e. reads on at least one of cell reselection measurement or cell reselection) and has chosen a cell; Lee, [0228] discloses A network e.g., at least one the 4G core network 521 or the 5G core network 522 of FIG. 5A may assign a priority to the electronic device 101 for each frequency to control the cell reselection of the electronic device 101 in an idle mode. For example, the electronic device 101 may receive priority information about two frequencies f1 and f2; when frequency f1 has higher priority than frequency f2, the electronic device 101 may be more likely to remain at frequency f1. Furthermore, even if the electronic device 101 remains at frequency f2, when the channel state of frequency f2 is not good, the electronic device 101 may attempt to change the frequency to f1).
Lee discloses changing the priority information about the frequency or cell and discloses an example of changing the priority of a cell supporting a slice to a higher priority than another cell and Lee, [0260] discloses the electronic device 101 may reselect the cell of a frequency with a high priority as a serving cell but fails to explicitly disclose that a priority of a frequency supporting a particular network slice is changed to a higher priority than another frequency and therefore fails to disclose “and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device;” and “adjusting a target priority of a frequency point supporting a particular network slice to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority of a particular frequency point, and the frequency point supporting the particular network slice is: a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in the at least one network slice of the terminal device”.
In a related field of endeavor, Murray discloses:
and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device; adjusting a target priority of a frequency point supporting a particular network slice to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority of a particular frequency point, (Murray, [0170] discloses the priority of a frequency is equal to the priority of the S-NSSAI with the highest priority on that frequency and for scenarios where two frequencies have the same priority, the number of S-NSSAIs (i.e. reads on corresponding to the at least one network slice) configured with that priority (i.e. reads on at least one priority) may also be considered when determining the priority of a frequency, e.g. a frequency (i.e. reads on of a frequency point) configured with x S-NSSAIs (i.e. reads on supporting a particular network slice) at priority P would be considered a higher priority (i.e. reads on adjusting a target priority to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority) than a frequency (i.e. reads on of a particular frequency point) configured with y S-NSSAIs at priority P, assuming x>y; Murray, [0107] discloses Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice: It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE (i.e. reads on of the terminal device) 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; Murray, [0224] discloses In the case of MO access, the UE 201 may determine the desired slice (s) based on the application/services for which data needs to be transmitted or the slices in the Allowed NSSAI; Murray, [0124] discloses a cell may also indicate which slices it supports via SI broadcast and for example, the SI broadcast by a cell may include an IE comprised of a list of network slices, e.g., S-NSSAIs, supported by the cell; Murray, [0200] discloses slice-based cell reselection parameters may be broadcast in system information or configured via dedicated signaling).
and the frequency point supporting the particular network slice is: a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in the at least one network slice of the terminal device (Murray, [0110] discloses operators may couple carrier/frequency with slices, (i.e. reads on the frequency point supporting the particular network slice is: a frequency point supporting at least one network slice) e.g. eMBB slices are supported on 2.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz, while URLLC slices are only supported on 4.9 GHz and to enable fast access to the cells supporting the intended slice(s), the network may be configured to “steer” a UE to camp on a specific frequency layer depending the service required, e.g. a UE requiring eMBB service (i.e. reads on in the at least one network slice of the terminal device) would be “steered” towards 2.6 GHz cells, and a UE requiring URLLC service would be “steered” towards 4.9 GHz cells; Murray, [0204] discloses the network may provide the UE with a reselection priority for one or more frequencies, where the priority of a given frequency may be based on the S-NSSAIs available on that frequency and the UE’s NSSAI; Murray, [0090] discloses each network slice is uniquely identified by a S-NSSAI).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Murray for the purpose of providing the system with a means to implement the adjustment of priority based on network slice information to both cells and frequencies as intended (Lee, [0254]) as well as providing a means for prioritization between frequencies having the same priority (Murray, [0170]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of changing the priority of a frequency based on network slice information as taught by Lee) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of changing the priority of a frequency based on network slice information, wherein the frequency supports a network slice of a UE and the priority of the frequency that supports the network slice is changed to a higher priority than another frequency and wherein the network slice information is received via broadcast or dedicated signaling as taught by Murray) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of changing the priority of a frequency based on network slice information (i.e. as taught by both Lee & Murray) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 14, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises: (see claim 1) and The terminal device according to claim 12, wherein the first information further comprises: (see claim 12).
information of a network slice supported by a candidate cell, wherein the candidate cell comprises at least one of or a cell supporting the network slice (Lee, [0254]-[0255] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell and discloses the electronic device 101 may change priority information based at least on the network slice information of the neighboring cell and when the electronic device 101 prefers the URLLC service by user settings or network settings, the electronic device 101 may identify a providable network slice type based on the network slice information of neighboring cells and may change priority information such that the priority of the second cell is higher than the priority of the first cell. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a serving cell of the terminal device”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 15, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The method according to claim 3, (see claim 3) and The terminal device according to claim 14, (see claim 14).
wherein: the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device is (Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “information of at least one network slice supported by the terminal device, or information of at least one network slice selected by the terminal device, or pre-configured network slice information, or information of at least one allowable network slice of the terminal device, or” and “or the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device is a union of at least two of the information of at least one network slice supported by the terminal device, the information of at least one network slice selected by the terminal device, the information of at least one allowable network slice of the terminal device, the information of at least one registered network slice of the terminal device, and the pre-configured network slice information; or the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device is an intersection of at least two of the information of at least one network slice supported by the terminal device, the information of at least one network slice selected by the terminal device, the information of at least one allowable network slice of the terminal device, the information of at least one registered network slice of the terminal device, and the pre-configured network slice information”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The method according to claim 1 (see claim 1).
wherein the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device further comprises at least one of: at least one frequency point corresponding to the at least one network slice; or at least one cell corresponding to the at least one network slice (Lee, [0254] discloses the electronic device changes the priority information about the network service type or the priority information about a frequency or cell, based on the network slice information. For example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The method according to claim 3, further comprising: (see claim 3).
obtaining, by the terminal device, the information of the network slice supported by the candidate cell from a broadcast message or Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling (Lee, [0249]-[0250] discloses the electronic device 101 identifies network capability information and for example, the network capability information may be included in the SIB and the network capability information may further include information about a neighboring cell and discloses the information about a neighboring cell may further include network slice information of the neighboring cell and for example, the network slice information of the information about a neighboring cell may indicate a service, which the neighboring cell is capable of providing, from among eMBB, URLLC, and mMTC services; Lee, [0156] discloses the network capability information may be included in at least one of system information e.g., master information block MIB or system information block SIB broadcast by the first base station 511, a message e.g., an RRC setup message associated with RRC connection, a message associated with registration, or a message associated with a protocol data unit PDU session; Murray, [0124] discloses a cell may also indicate which slices it supports via SI broadcast and for example, the SI broadcast by a cell may include an IE comprised of a list of network slices, e.g., S-NSSAIs, supported by the cell; Murray, [0200] discloses slice-based cell reselection parameters may be broadcast in system information or configured via dedicated signaling).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The method according to claim 3, (see claim 3).
wherein the information of the network slice supported by the candidate cell comprises at least one of: identity information of the network slice supported by the candidate cell; (Lee, [0254]-[0255] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell and discloses the electronic device 101 may change priority information based at least on the network slice information of the neighboring cell and when the electronic device 101 prefers the URLLC service by user settings or network settings, the electronic device 101 may identify a providable network slice type based on the network slice information of neighboring cells and may change priority information such that the priority of the second cell is higher than the priority of the first cell. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a frequency point corresponding to the network slice supported by the candidate cell; a cell corresponding to the network slice supported by the candidate cell; or a priority corresponding to the network slice supported by the candidate cell”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses:
A network device, comprising one or more processors, and memory storing a plurality of programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network device to: send first information to a terminal device, wherein the first information is used to indicate network slice related information, (Lee, [0198] discloses the electronic device 101 (i.e. reads on to a terminal device) receives network slice information (i.e. reads on send first information and reads on wherein the first information is used to indicate network slice related information) from a first base station 511 (i.e. reads on network device) and the network slice information may be information used to select a network slice instance and the network slice information may mean NSSAI and the NSSAI may include pieces of single-NSSAI S-NSSAI; Lee, Fig. 1 & [0055]-[0056] discloses the electronic device 101 in the network environment 100 may communicate with an electronic device 102 via a first network 198 e.g., a short-range wireless communication network, or an electronic device 104 or a server 108 via a second network 199 e.g., a long-range wireless communication network and the electronic device 101 may include a processor 120, memory, etc. and discloses the processor 120 may execute, for example, software e.g., a program 140 to control at least one other component e.g., a hardware or software component of the electronic device 101 coupled with the processor 120, and the processor 120 may load a command or data received from another component e.g., the sensor module 176 or the communication module 190 in volatile memory 132, process the command or the data stored in the volatile memory 132; Lee, [0130] discloses the electronic device 101 may mean a terminal, user equipment UE, a mobile station, a subscriber station, a remote terminal, a wireless terminal or a user device. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as a base station to include processor, memory and programs in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
and the first information is used for the terminal device to determine a target priority of a frequency point; (Lee, [0254] discloses the electronic device (i.e. reads on by for the terminal) changes the priority information (i.e. reads on determining a target priority) about a frequency (i.e. reads on of a frequency point) or cell, based on the network slice information (i.e. reads on the first information is used)).
wherein the first information comprises information of at least one network slice of the terminal device; (Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service (i.e. reads on wherein the first information comprises information of at least one network slice of the terminal device), the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell; Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device; Lee, [0198] discloses The network slice information may be information used to select a network slice instance. The network slice information may mean NSSAI. The NSSAI may include pieces of single-NSSAI S-NSSAI. For example, NSSAI or S-NSSAI may include a slice/service type SST and slice differentiator SD. The SST may indicate a network service type, and the SD may indicate information associated with the performance of a network slice instance).
and the information of at least one network slice of the terminal device comprises: identity information of the at least one network slice, (Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, (i.e. reads on identity information of the at least one network slice) the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device).
wherein the first information is used for the terminal device to adjust a target priority of a frequency point (Lee, [0254] discloses the electronic device (i.e. reads on by the terminal) changes the priority information (i.e. reads on determining the target priority comprises adjusting a target priority) about a frequency (i.e. reads on of the frequency point) or cell, based on the network slice information (i.e. reads on according to first information, wherein the first information is used to indicate network slice related information)).
(Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service (i.e. reads on a particular network slice) to be higher than the priority (i.e. reads on to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority) of the serving cell (i.e. reads on of a particular point); Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device).
and perform at least one of cell reselection measurement or cell reselection according to the target priority (Lee, [0263] discloses the electronic device 101 (i.e. reads on performing, by the terminal device) receives information necessary for cell reselection, from the first cell 1711 and the information necessary for cell reselection may include measurement rule information used to determine a cell measurement target and the measurement rule information may indicate the priority (i.e. reads on according to the target priority) for the cell reselection (i.e. reads on cell reselection) determined by the network to which the electronic device 101 is connected, or may include the priority determined by the network during inter-frequency measurement and intra-frequency measurement; Lee, [0107] discloses The term “camp on a cell” may mean that a UE e.g. the electronic device 101 has completed the cell selection/reselection process (i.e. reads on at least one of cell reselection measurement or cell reselection) and has chosen a cell; Lee, [0228] discloses A network e.g., at least one the 4G core network 521 or the 5G core network 522 of FIG. 5A may assign a priority to the electronic device 101 for each frequency to control the cell reselection of the electronic device 101 in an idle mode. For example, the electronic device 101 may receive priority information about two frequencies f1 and f2; when frequency f1 has higher priority than frequency f2, the electronic device 101 may be more likely to remain at frequency f1. Furthermore, even if the electronic device 101 remains at frequency f2, when the channel state of frequency f2 is not good, the electronic device 101 may attempt to change the frequency to f1).
and the(Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service (i.e. reads on in the at least one network slice of the terminal device), the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service (i.e. reads on point supporting at least one network slice) based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell (i.e. reads on point) supporting the eMBB service (i.e. reads on supporting the particular network slice and reads on supporting at least one network slice) to be higher than the priority of the serving cell; Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in at least one network slice allowable of the terminal device”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
wherein the particular network slice comprises at least one network slice in a first network slice set, and the first network slice set is at least one network slice comprised in the information of the at least one network slice of the terminal device (Lee, [0367] discloses the processor may be configured to receive network slice information indicating at least one network slice instance from the base station and to display a service indicator indicating eMBB, URLLC or mMTC (i.e. reads on wherein the particular network slice comprises at least one network slice in a first network slice set, and the first network slice set is at least one network slice) through the display, based at least on the network slice information and the network service type capable of being supported by the electronic device (i.e. reads on comprised in the information of the at least one network slice of the terminal device); Lee, [0133] discloses the 5G core network 522 may provide the electronic device 101 with a plurality of network services through a plurality of network slice instances 531, 532, and 533 included in the 5G core network 522 and the type of network service received by the electronic device 101 may include at least one of eMBB, URLLC, or mMTC; Lee, [0140] discloses the electronic device 101 is connected to the first network slice instance 531 supporting the eMBB service; Lee, [0254] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service).
Lee discloses changing the priority information about the frequency or cell and discloses an example of changing the priority of a cell supporting a slice to a higher priority than another cell and Lee, [0260] discloses the electronic device 101 may reselect the cell of a frequency with a high priority as a serving cell but fails to explicitly disclose that a priority of a frequency supporting a particular network slice is changed to a higher priority than another frequency and therefore fails to disclose “and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device;” and “adjust a target priority of a frequency point supporting a particular network slice to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority of a particular frequency point, and the frequency point supporting the particular network slice is: a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in the at least one network slice of the terminal device”.
In a related field of endeavor, Murray discloses:
and at least one priority corresponding to the at least one network slice of the terminal device; adjust a target priority of a frequency point supporting a particular network slice to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority of a particular frequency point, (Murray, [0170] discloses the priority of a frequency is equal to the priority of the S-NSSAI with the highest priority on that frequency and for scenarios where two frequencies have the same priority, the number of S-NSSAIs (i.e. reads on corresponding to the at least one network slice) configured with that priority (i.e. reads on at least one priority) may also be considered when determining the priority of a frequency, e.g. a frequency (i.e. reads on of a frequency point) configured with x S-NSSAIs (i.e. reads on supporting a particular network slice) at priority P would be considered a higher priority (i.e. reads on adjusting a target priority to be a second priority, wherein the second priority is higher than a priority) than a frequency (i.e. reads on of a particular frequency point) configured with y S-NSSAIs at priority P, assuming x>y; Murray, [0107] discloses Validation of the UE rights to access a network slice: It is the responsibility of the 5GC to validate that the UE (i.e. reads on of the terminal device) 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; Murray, [0224] discloses In the case of MO access, the UE 201 may determine the desired slice (s) based on the application/services for which data needs to be transmitted or the slices in the Allowed NSSAI; Murray, [0124] discloses a cell may also indicate which slices it supports via SI broadcast and for example, the SI broadcast by a cell may include an IE comprised of a list of network slices, e.g., S-NSSAIs, supported by the cell; Murray, [0200] discloses slice-based cell reselection parameters may be broadcast in system information or configured via dedicated signaling).
and the frequency point supporting the particular network slice is: a frequency point supporting at least one network slice in the at least one network slice of the terminal device (Murray, [0110] discloses operators may couple carrier/frequency with slices, (i.e. reads on the frequency point supporting the particular network slice is: a frequency point supporting at least one network slice) e.g. eMBB slices are supported on 2.6 GHz and 4.9 GHz, while URLLC slices are only supported on 4.9 GHz and to enable fast access to the cells supporting the intended slice(s), the network may be configured to “steer” a UE to camp on a specific frequency layer depending the service required, e.g. a UE requiring eMBB service (i.e. reads on in the at least one network slice of the terminal device) would be “steered” towards 2.6 GHz cells, and a UE requiring URLLC service would be “steered” towards 4.9 GHz cells; Murray, [0204] discloses the network may provide the UE with a reselection priority for one or more frequencies, where the priority of a given frequency may be based on the S-NSSAIs available on that frequency and the UE’s NSSAI; Murray, [0090] discloses each network slice is uniquely identified by a S-NSSAI).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Murray for the purpose of providing the system with a means to implement the adjustment of priority based on network slice information to both cells and frequencies as intended (Lee, [0254]) as well as providing a means for prioritization between frequencies having the same priority (Murray, [0170]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of changing the priority of a frequency based on network slice information as taught by Lee) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of changing the priority of a frequency based on network slice information, wherein the frequency supports a network slice of a UE and the priority of the frequency that supports the network slice is changed to a higher priority than another frequency and wherein the network slice information is received via broadcast or dedicated signaling as taught by Murray) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of changing the priority of a frequency based on network slice information (i.e. as taught by both Lee & Murray) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The network device according to claim 16, wherein the first information further comprises: (see claim 16).
information of a network slice supported by a candidate cell, wherein the candidate cell comprises at least one of (Lee, [0254]-[0255] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell and discloses the electronic device 101 may change priority information based at least on the network slice information of the neighboring cell and when the electronic device 101 prefers the URLLC service by user settings or network settings, the electronic device 101 may identify a providable network slice type based on the network slice information of neighboring cells and may change priority information such that the priority of the second cell is higher than the priority of the first cell. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a serving cell of the terminal device”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The network device according to claim 17, wherein the plurality of programs that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network device to: (see claim 17).
send the information of the network slice supported by the candidate cell to the terminal device via a broadcast message or Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling (Lee, [0249]-[0250] discloses the electronic device 101 identifies network capability information and for example, the network capability information may be included in the SIB and the network capability information may further include information about a neighboring cell and discloses the information about a neighboring cell may further include network slice information of the neighboring cell and for example, the network slice information of the information about a neighboring cell may indicate a service, which the neighboring cell is capable of providing, from among eMBB, URLLC, and mMTC services; Lee, [0156] discloses the network capability information may be included in at least one of system information e.g., master information block MIB or system information block SIB broadcast by the first base station 511, a message e.g., an RRC setup message associated with RRC connection, a message associated with registration, or a message associated with a protocol data unit PDU session; Murray, [0124] discloses a cell may also indicate which slices it supports via SI broadcast and for example, the SI broadcast by a cell may include an IE comprised of a list of network slices, e.g., S-NSSAIs, supported by the cell; Murray, [0200] discloses slice-based cell reselection parameters may be broadcast in system information or configured via dedicated signaling).
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Murray discloses:
The network device according to claim 18, (see claim 18).
wherein information of the network slice supported by the candidate cell comprises at least one of: identity information of the network slice supported by the candidate cell; (Lee, [0254]-[0255] discloses for example, when the electronic device 101 is registered as an eMBB service, the electronic device 101 may identify the cell supporting the eMBB service based on the network slice information and may change the priority of the identified cell to be high and the electronic device 101 may change the priority of the cell supporting the eMBB service to be higher than the priority of the serving cell and discloses the electronic device 101 may change priority information based at least on the network slice information of the neighboring cell and when the electronic device 101 prefers the URLLC service by user settings or network settings, the electronic device 101 may identify a providable network slice type based on the network slice information of neighboring cells and may change priority information such that the priority of the second cell is higher than the priority of the first cell. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “a frequency point corresponding to the network slice supported by the candidate cell; a cell corresponding to the network slice supported by the candidate cell; or a priority corresponding to the network slice supported by the candidate cell”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
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 MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights