DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 21, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 24, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Final Office Action on January 30, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (hereinafter “Murray”, US 2023/0156583) in view of Nuggehalli et al. (hereinafter “Nuggehalli”, US 2023/0300739) and further in view of Chang et al. (hereinafter “Chang”, US 2021/0352542).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses a method for processing network slicing information, applied to a terminal device, the method comprising:
receiving, by the terminal device, first information (i.e., informing a UE of the availability of a network slice within a PLMN (e.g., the frequency or (frequencies), cells, RNAs, TAs, or RAs that support a giving network slice as described in paragraph 0123), wherein the first information comprises network slicing information (i.e., informing a UE of the availability of a network slice within a PLMN (e.g., the frequency or (frequencies), cells, RNAs, TAs, or RAs that support a giving network slice as described in paragraph 0123. Also, a list of available or barred slices, S-NSSAIs broadcasted by the cell including Cell Identity, Tracking Area Code, RAN area code broadcasted by the cell, the frequency of the cell, or other information as described in paragraph 0236) and a restriction condition corresponding to the network slicing information (i.e., Slice Specific Mobility Restrictions as described in paragraph 0123), and the first information is used by the terminal device to determine priority information of a cell or frequency point used when performing cell selection or reselection (i.e., the UE determines whether or not a given cell supports the network slice based on the cell’s Physical Cell ID (PCI), corresponding RNA, TA, or RA, or the frequency layer on which the cell is operating as described in paragraphs 0056, 0113, 0123-0124, 0132-0135 and Table 2),
wherein the restriction condition corresponding to the network slicing information comprises a valid range of the network slicing information (i.e., Slice Specific Mobility Restrictions as described. Also, the UE determines whether or not a given cell supports the network slice based on the cell’s Physical Cell ID (PCI), corresponding RNA, TA, or RA, or the frequency layer on which the cell is operating as described in paragraphs 0123-0124); and
wherein the valid range of the network slicing information comprises a cell, a tracking area TA, and a frequency point (i.e., Slice Specific Mobility Restrictions as described. Also, the UE determines whether or not a given cell supports the network slice based on the cell’s Physical Cell ID (PCI), corresponding RNA, TA, or RA, or the frequency layer on which the cell is operating as described in paragraphs 0123-0124).
Murray, however, does not expressly disclose:
wherein the network slicing information comprises an identification of the network slice, a correspondence between the network slice and a cell, and a priority of a frequency point corresponding to the network slice,
wherein the identification of the network slice corresponds to a slice supported by network, and
wherein if the first information is obtained through both a system information and a dedicated information, the first information carried in the dedicated information is prevailed.
In a similar endeavor, Nuggehalli discloses RACH procedures for requesting slice support information. Nuggehalli also discloses:
wherein the network slicing information comprises an identification of the network slice, a correspondence between the network slice and a cell, and a priority of a frequency point corresponding to the network slice (i.e., the first message indicates a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell and a set of priority for plurality of frequencies applying by the UE as described in claim 10, and in paragraphs 0004, 0034-0036, 0039, and 0142),
wherein the identification of the network slice corresponds to a slice supported by network (i.e., the first message indicates a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell and a set of priority for plurality of frequencies applying by the UE as described in claim 10, and paragraphs 0039, and 0142), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the terminal device to establish a connection with a network.
The combination of Murray and Nuggehalli does not expressly disclose the remaining features of this claim.
Furthermore, Chang discloses cell reselection in communication systems using unlicensed frequency bands. Chang also discloses:
wherein if the first information is obtained through both a system information and a dedicated information, the first information carried in the dedicated information is prevailed (i.e., the dedicates signaling overrides the priority configured via SIB as described in paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the specific terminal device to receive the necessary information.
With further regard to claim 7, Murray also discloses a terminal device (i.e., a UE 102 as shown in Fig. 14F), comprising a processor (i.e., processor 118) and a memory (i.e., non-removable memory 130 and removable memory 132), the memory is used to store computer programs, the processor is configured to call and run the computer programs stored in the memory (i.e., program as described in paragraph 0381).
Regarding claim 13, Murray discloses a network device (i.e., network device 90 as shown in Fig. 14G), comprising: a processor (i.e., processor 91) and a memory (i.e., memory 92, RAM 82, ROM 93), the memory is used to store a computer program (i.e., program as described in paragraph 0377), the processor is configured to call and run the computer program stored in the memory, to perform:
sending first information to a terminal device (i.e., informing a UE of the availability of a network slice within a PLMN (e.g., the frequency or (frequencies), cells, RNAs, TAs, or RAs that support a giving network slice as described in paragraph 0123), wherein the first information comprises network slicing information (i.e., informing a UE of the availability of a network slice within a PLMN (e.g., the frequency or (frequencies), cells, RNAs, TAs, or RAs that support a giving network slice as described in paragraph 0123. Also, a list of available or barred slices, S-NSSAIs broadcasted by the cell including Cell Identity, Tracking Area Code, RAN area code broadcasted by the cell, the frequency of the cell, or other information as described in paragraph 0236) and a restriction condition corresponding to the network slicing information (i.e., Slice Specific Mobility Restrictions as described in paragraph 0123), and the first information is used by the terminal device to determine priority information of a cell or frequency point used when performing cell selection or reselection (i.e., the UE determines whether or not a given cell supports the network slice based on the cell’s Physical Cell ID (PCI), corresponding RNA, TA, or RA, or the frequency layer on which the cell is operating as described in paragraphs 0056, 0113, 0123-0124, 0132-0135 and Table 2),
wherein the restriction condition corresponding to the network slicing information comprises a valid range of the network slicing information (i.e., Slice Specific Mobility Restrictions as described. Also, the UE determines whether or not a given cell supports the network slice based on the cell’s Physical Cell ID (PCI), corresponding RNA, TA, or RA, or the frequency layer on which the cell is operating as described in paragraphs 0123-0124); and
wherein the valid range of the network slicing information comprises a cell, a tracking area TA, and a frequency point (i.e., Slice Specific Mobility Restrictions as described. Also, the UE determines whether or not a given cell supports the network slice based on the cell’s Physical Cell ID (PCI), corresponding RNA, TA, or RA, or the frequency layer on which the cell is operating as described in paragraphs 0123-0124).
Murray, however, does not expressly disclose:
wherein the network slicing information comprises an identification of the network slice, a correspondence between the network slice and a cell, and a priority of a frequency point corresponding to the network slice,
wherein the identification of the network slice corresponds to a slice supported by network, and
wherein if both system information carrying the first information and dedicated information carrying the first information are sent to the terminal device, the first information carried in the dedicated information is prevailed.
In a similar endeavor, Nuggehalli discloses RACH procedures for requesting slice support information. Nuggehalli also discloses:
wherein the network slicing information comprises an identification of the network slice, a correspondence between the network slice and a cell, and a priority of a frequency point corresponding to the network slice (i.e., the first message indicates a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell and a set of priority for plurality of frequencies applying by the UE as described in claim 10, and in paragraphs 0004, 0034-0036, 0039, and 0142),
wherein the identification of the network slice corresponds to a slice supported by network (i.e., the first message indicates a set of one or more network slices supported by a cell and a set of priority for plurality of frequencies applying by the UE as described in claim 10, and paragraphs 0039, and 0142), and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the terminal device to establish a connection with a network.
The combination of Murray and Nuggehalli does not expressly disclose the remaining features of this claim.
Furthermore, Chang discloses cell reselection in communication systems using unlicensed frequency bands. Chang also discloses:
wherein if both system information carrying the first information and dedicated information carrying the first information are sent to the terminal device, the first information carried in the dedicated information is prevailed (i.e., the dedicates signaling overrides the priority configured via SIB as described in paragraph 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the specific terminal device to receive the necessary information.
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Murray, Nuggehalli, and Chang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Murray also discloses wherein the restriction condition corresponding to the network slicing information further comprises:
a valid period of the network slicing information (i.e., Slice Specific T as described in paragraphs 0289).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 16, Murray, Nuggehalli, and Chang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Murray also discloses wherein, the valid range of the network slicing information further comprises at least one of: a cell list, a radio access network RAN area, a RAN area list, a TA list, a frequency point list, a public land mobile network PLMN, and a PLMN list (i.e., RNAs, TAs as described in paragraphs 0123).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 18, Murray, Nuggehalli, and Chang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Murray also discloses wherein,
the first information is information per UE; or,
the first information is information per slice or information per slice list (i.e., S-NSSAI information as described in paragraph 0385-0386); or,
the first information is information per cell; or,
the first information is information per slice per UE, or information per slice list per UE; or,
the first information is information per slice per cell or information per slice list per cell.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray in view of Nuggehalli, in view of Chang, and further in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”, US 2022/0303871).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, Murray, Nuggehalli, and Chang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Chen discloses access barring for radio access network slicing. Chen also discloses wherein, the valid period of the network slice information is a finite value, wherein the valid period comprises a start time and an end time, or, the valid period comprises a valid time interval (i.e., indicating the back off timer parameters to the UE in the random access response as described in paragraph 0046); and/or,
the valid period of the network slicing information comprises at least one of: a time when the terminal device receives the first information, and a time corresponding to an end of a predetermined time period after the time when the terminal device receives the first information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to effectively manage and prevent multiple user equipments to re-transmit signal and reduce collisions.
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray in view of Nuggehalli in view of Chang, and further in view of Han et al. (hereinafter “Han”, US 11,611,912).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Murray, Nuggehalli, and Chang disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Han discloses cell reselection method and related device. Han also discloses wherein, the network slicing information further comprises at least one of: a priority of the network slice, a correspondence between the network slice and a frequency point, and a priority of a cell corresponding to the network slice (i.e., priority information corresponding to each carrier frequency, network slices as described in col. 2, lines 27-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the terminal to select a network with optimal performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached on (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights