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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment to the claims filed on 01/06/2026 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Objection to Claims 8, 14, and 16 is withdrawn. Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, and 18-19 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 13-14, and 16-17 are amended. Double patenting is maintained for the record in view of the Amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 01/06/2026 (hereinafter Resp.) with respect to Amended Claims 1, 9, and 17 are fully considered hereinafter.
Regarding the Distinguishing Feature 1 (“the first preset condition comprises a duration within which channel quality of the first cell is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration” – Resp.,8:¶3) of the Amendment, Applicant argues that “3GPP R2-2102696 mentions the S criterion as a basis for cell (re)selection. The S criterion (Srxlev > 0 & Squal > 0) indeed requires both signal strength and signal quality to be above a specific threshold of 0 dB. However, this criterion assesses cell suitability based on an instantaneous evaluation of signal strength and quality” – See Resp.,9:¶4 (emphasis added). Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s reading of the reference 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #113bis-e, R2-2102696, Agenda Item: 8.8.2., Title: “Slice specific cell reselection,” Source: Qualcomm, April 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP R2-2102696) as cited in the previous Office action (hereinafter NFOAM).
First, 3GPP R2-2102696, discloses that, when selecting neighbor cells/frequencies, “[t]he UE determines the highest ranked cell in that frequency based on calculated criteria-R and criteria-S” as cited in the NFOAM at pages 17 &18, i.e., both R and S criteria are evaluated following 3GPP TS 38.304 V16.4.0 (2021-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) procedures in Idle mode and RRC Inactive state (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.304) included by reference in 3GPP R2-2102696.
Second, Footnote 2, NFOAM at page 18, specifically cites to 3GPP TS 38.304 stating, at page 25, that for equal priority inter-frequency cells reselection, cells “shall be ranked according to the R criteria . . . and calculating the R values using averaged RSRP results,” (emphasis added). To be sure, § 2.4.5, 3GPP TS 38.304:24 already teaches the same thing about the S criterion (“cell reselection to a cell on a higher priority NR frequency or inter-RAT frequency than the serving frequency shall be performed if : [a] cell of a higher priority RAT/ frequency fulfils Srxlev > ThreshX, HighP during a time interval TreselectionRAT;” or “[a] cell of a higher priority NR or EUTRAN RAT/frequency fulfils Squal > ThreshX, HighQ during a time interval TreselectionRAT” depending on how long the UE has been camping the current serving cell). Therefore, whether it is about the criterion-S or criterion-R, 3GPP TS 38.304 explicitly teaches cell reselection based on UE measurements specifically using a “duration within which channel quality is higher than a threshold is greater than or equal to a first duration” (e.g., TreselectionRAT1).
Therefore, Applicant’s argument that 3GPP R2-2102696 also fails to disclose Distinguishing Feature 1 fails to persuade because a person of ordinary skills in the art would have known that this feature was disclosed before the effective date of the present application in the reference cited by 3GPP R2-2102696 specifically for the S and R criteria of cell reselection.
Regarding Distinguishing Feature 2 (“performing, by the terminal device, cell reselection based on the first network slice information; in response to determining that the cell reselection fails, obtaining, by the terminal device, a second cell according to a legacy cell reselection criterion; and initiating, by the terminal device, random access to the second cell” – Resp.,8:¶4) of the Amendment, Applicant argues that “3GPP R2-2102696 does not frame "reverting to legacy criteria" as a consequence triggered by the failure of an earlier slice-based reselection attempt” because “[i]t lacks both the explicit procedural trigger ("in response to determining that the cell reselection fails") and the sequential logic that defines this feature.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this reading of 3GPP R2-2102696 teachings that should be taken in view of the knowledge of a person of ordinary skills in the art.
First, the main reason why 3GPP R2-2102696 proposes fallback to the “way of NR/LTE cell reselection [that] only consider radio condition” is “to ensure UE doesn't lose coverage,” i.e., is the fundamental reason why the cell reselection procedure described in 3GPP TS 38.304 exists, as a person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate. That is necessary because, with the introduction of slice-based cell (re)selection mechanism in Rel-17 to enable UE fast access to a cell supporting the intended slice2, e.g., by broadcasting supported slice info of the current cell and neighbor cells and reselection priority per slice, as taught in Gao:[¶0036], there may be a case where there is no cell supporting the slice intended by the UE and if the cell reselection procedure relies only on slice information and reselection priority, the UE runs out of coverage, as one of ordinary skills in the art would understand and as § 2.4.1, 3GPP R2-2102696:4-5 addresses (“how to ensure UE doesn't lose coverage due to slice prioritization , which is also captured in Section 5.5.1 of TR 38.832 [2]”). Third, the amended claim language requiring cell reselection failure based on slice information (“performing cell reselection based on the first network slice information,” i.e., based on slice information and reselection priority among cells supporting the slice) before failover to legacy mechanism (“obtaining a second cell according to a legacy cell reselection criterion,” i.e., based on radio signal quality) is precisely within the meaning of Observation 5 and Proposal 9 Alt-1, § 2.4.1, 3GPP R2-2102696:5 (if the UE “lose[s] coverage during cell reselection due to slice prioritization,” i.e., because the cell reselection procedure based on slice information/prioritization fails to find a “suitable cell,” i.e., a cell to camp on that offers the UE intended slice, then “follow legacy way of NR / LTE cell reselection to only consider radio condition in intra-frequency cell reselection” specifically “i.e. supported slice info is not considered in intra-frequency cell reselection,” i.e., when calculating ranking criterion-R and criterion-S). That is, § 2.4.1, 3GPP R2-2102696:4-5 clearly provides the “failure” trigger for the fallback to legacy mechanism, the trigger being failure to reselect a cell based on slice information and reselection priority, i.e., the first network slice information, as required by the amended claim. To be sure, § 2.4.2, 3GPP R2-2102696:6 specifically provides that:
“if the camped cell provides UE’s all intended slices, the UE may consider the serving frequency as highest priority,” i.e., the UE would not reselect for a neighbor cell until/unless a neighbor cell offers the same slice with a higher priority
“for priority of neighbor frequencies” the requirement is that “[i]n one configured neighbor frequency, if (any) one cell provides slice with highest priority supported by the UE . . . UE can temporally regard that frequency as high priority,” ignore intra-frequency radio signal quality for cell reselection and “determine[] the highest ranked cell in that [inter-] frequency [reselection] based on calculated criteria-R and criteria-S,” i.e., the UE will stay in the serving cell offering the slice (and ignore a frequency with higher priority slice) if the legacy criteria fail.
Because the above mechanism basically provides that the UE will come back in the serving cell offering the slice if the UE fails in reselecting the cell/frequency offering the same slice with a higher priority, the main issue becomes: the UE fails (re)selection for a higher slice priority cell/frequency and loses coverage in the original cell while/after the failure when following the slice priority based cell reselection procedure. In this case, the cell the UE currently camps on (based on the cell still offering the slice) fails the serving cell measurement “Srxlev > SIntraSearchP and Squal > SIntraSearchQ” provided in § 5.2.4.2, 3GPP TS 38.304:22. In this case, and in any case when radio signal quality in the selected cell becomes lower than a threshold, the “UE shall apply the [cell reselection] rules for NR inter-frequencies and inter-RAT frequencies which are indicated in system information,” i.e., select for the strongest frequency based on legacy criterion-S and criterion-R. This behavior is in the standard specifications and assures compatibility for UEs not supporting the feature of slice specific cell reselection.
Therefore, the sequential logic that defines the optimized/additional/”fancy” feature of cell reselection for slice information and priority, and what 3GPP R2-2102696 teaches, is that the legacy cell (re)selection mechanism “beats” the “slice information” cell (re)selection mechanism when the latter fails, and a UE cannot hang-on to the slice offering cell when the radio signal of that cell becomes weaker than the signal of another cell/frequency not offering the slice.3 Therefore, 3GPP R2-2102696 teaches that the trigger for the legacy cell reselection is “failure of an earlier slice-based reselection attempt.” Finally, the Distinguishing Feature 2 is recited in the alternative in the amended independent claims, therefore not necessary for meeting the requirements of the amended independent claims.
In sum, Applicant’s arguments have been fully addressed but fail to persuade.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Amended Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/209,698 (reference application) in view of Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0015784 (hereinafter Cheng). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in regards of the limitations marked with the same number in the table below.
Present Application
Application 18/209,698
1
A method for random access, comprising:
1
A wireless communication method, comprising:
performing, by a terminal device, random access based on [3] required first network slice information, comprising:
[4] performing, by the terminal device, cell reselection based on [1] the first network slice information to obtain a first cell,
determining, by a terminal device, a target criterion for performing cell selection or cell reselection according to [1] slice information of the terminal device and/or slice information of a network device, wherein the determining a target criterion comprises:
wherein the first cell is a current camping cell or a neighboring cell that supports [1] the first network slice information and [2] satisfies a first preset condition, and
determining, by the terminal device when [2] a first condition is satisfied, that the target criterion is a first criterion, the first criterion indicating to [4] perform the cell selection or the cell reselection based on [1] the slice information of the terminal device and/or the slice information of the network device,
wherein [2] the first preset condition comprises:
wherein [2] the first condition comprises:
a duration within which channel quality of the first cell is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration;
the terminal device having obtained [3] slice information required by the terminal device;
and initiating, by the terminal device, [5] random access to the first cell; or
performing, by the terminal device, cell reselection based on the first network
slice information; in response to [6] determining that the cell reselection fails,
and determining, by the terminal device [6] when a second condition is satisfied,
[7] obtaining, by the terminal device, a second cell according to a legacy cell reselection criterion;
that the target criterion is a second criterion, the second criterion indicating [7] not to perform the cell selection or the cell reselection based on the slice information of the terminal device and/or the slice information of the network device,
and initiating, by the terminal device, random access to the second cell.
wherein the second condition comprises: [6] the terminal device having not obtained [3] the slice information required by the terminal device;
performing, by the terminal device, the cell selection or the cell reselection according to the target criterion [7]
9 (1)
the method of claim 1 further comprising:
determining, by the terminal device, that a cell satisfying the following condition is a suitable cell and/or [5] performing a normal service in the suitable cell: supporting [3] slice information required by the terminal device
Regarding Amended Claim 1 of the present Application, each of the limitations [1], [3], and [4] are not patentably distinct from the same limitation in Claim 1 of the reference Application. In regards to limitation [2], although both claims disclose a first condition for performing limitation [4], i.e., perform the cell reselection based on [2] the first network slice information, the present Application requires more than limitation [3], slice information required by the terminal device, because the present Application requires (a) a duration within which channel quality of the first cell is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration. In addition, the present Application also requires (b) performing, by a terminal device, random access on the (re)selected cell.
Cheng discloses “methods for a device (e.g., a user equipment (UE)) to gain access a network slice (e.g., service), such as via a cell supporting the network slice. To gain access to the network slice, the UE may perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure and in some cases, some network slices may be assigned a priority and/or assigned dedicated RACH resources to perform the RACH procedure” – See [¶0005]. Cheng further teaches that “network slices may be associated with dedicated RSRP thresholds (e.g., each network slice is assigned an RSRP threshold) based on priority” – See [¶0046], whereby “to gain access to a network slice” the UE performs “one or more RSRP measurements between UE 115-a and base station 105-a, where the one or more RSRP measurements may be based on one or more synchronization signals, or one or more reference signals, or both” and “may compare one or more of the one or more RSRP measurements . . . to the RSRP threshold” to determine “[i]f the RSRP measurement is above the common RSRP threshold” each time it is measured, i.e., for a first duration that can be configured to the UE. Therefore, Cheng teaches: (a) a duration within which channel quality of the first cell, e.g., a cell supporting the first slice information, is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration. A person of ordinary skills in the art would have combined Cheng with the reference Application to arrive at the claimed invention based on the motivation to (re)select the cells with the strongest radio signal for the predetermined period of time, as taught by Cheng.
In addition, the reference Application teaches in Claim 9 [5] performing a normal service in the suitable cell when the cell , whereby “normal service” require access to that service/slice, as taught by Cheng (“UE 115-b may identify a service to be accessed by UE 115-b, the service supported by a logical network associated with the physical network. The service supported by the logical network associated with the physical network may be a network slice” – See [¶0091]), i.e., (b) performing, by a terminal device, random access on the (re)selected cell. Therefore, Claims 9 of the reference Application in view of Cheng is not patentably distinct from Amended Claim 1 of the present Application.
Taking now the alternative in Amended Claim 1 of the present Application, the reference Application teaches limitation [7] wherein not performing the cell selection or the cell reselection based on the slice information implies performing the cell selection or the cell reselection based on legacy procedure. Although Claim 9 of reference Application teaches the second condition comprises: [6] the terminal device having not obtained [3] the slice information required by the terminal device, this condition, in a reasonable interpretation, is a species/special case of failing by the terminal device, at performing cell reselection based on the first network slice information.
In sum, Amended Claim 1 of the present Application is provisionally rejected over Claim 9 of the reference Application 18/209,698 in view of Cheng. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Amended Claims 1, and 9 of the present Application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 and 22 of copending Application No. 18/145,183 (reference Application) in view of Cheng. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, in regards of the limitations marked with the same number in the table below for Claims 1-3.
Present Application
Application 18/145,183
1
a method for random access, comprising
1
A wireless communication method, comprising
performing, by a terminal device, [1] random access based on [2] required first network slice information comprising
transmitting, by a terminal device, first slice-related information to a network device, the first slice-related information
being carried [1] in a random access procedure, and [2] the first slice-related information indicating a network slice supported by the terminal device . . .
3
(1)
. . . receiving, by the terminal device, [4] access-control information transmitted by the network device
[3] performing, by the terminal device, cell reselection based on [4] the first network slice information to obtain a first cell wherein the first cell is a current camping cell or a neighboring cell that supports [4] the first network slice information and
4
(3)
. . . [3] performing, by the terminal device, cell selection or cell reselection according to [4] the access-control information
satisfies a [6] first preset condition,
wherein [6] the first preset condition comprises a duration within
which channel quality of the first cell is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration;
initiating, by the terminal device, [5] random access to the first cell [4]
performing, by the terminal device, [5] random access according to [4] the access-control information;
Regarding Amended Claim 1 of the present Application, all the limitations for the first alternative are claimed by Claim 4 of the reference Application, except limitation [6]. However, Cheng discloses that “network slices may be associated with dedicated RSRP thresholds (e.g., each network slice is assigned an RSRP threshold) based on priority” – See [¶0046], whereby “to gain access to a network slice” the UE performs “one or more RSRP measurements between UE 115-a and base station 105-a, where the one or more RSRP measurements may be based on one or more synchronization signals, or one or more reference signals, or both” and “may compare one or more of the one or more RSRP measurements . . . to the RSRP threshold” to determine “[i]f the RSRP measurement is above the common RSRP threshold” each time it is measured, i.e., for a first duration that can be configured to the UE. Therefore, Cheng teaches limitation [6], a duration within which channel quality of the first cell, e.g., a cell supporting the first slice information, is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration. A person of ordinary skills in the art would have combined Cheng with the reference Application to arrive at the claimed invention based on the motivation to (re)select the cells with the strongest radio signal for the predetermined period of time, as taught by Cheng. Similar reasoning applies to Amended Claim 9 of the present Application when compared with Claim 22 of the reference Application in view of Cheng.
In sum, Amended Claims 1 and 9 of the present Application are provisionally rejected over Claims 4 and 22 of the reference Application 18/209,698 in view of Cheng. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
It is noted though that Applicant received Notice of Allowance on both Application 18/209,698 and Application 18/209,698.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Amended Claims 1, 9, and 17, and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Amended Claim 1 it recites the limitation "performing random access based on required first network slice information, comprising: . . . in response to determining that the cell reselection fails, obtaining a second cell according to a legacy cell reselection criterion; and initiating random access to the second cell.” A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). MPER § 2173.05(e). Here, it is unclear how to perform, as required by the claim language, the random access based on required first network slice information, whereby “the network slice information may be S-NSSAI, a network slice index, a network slice group identifier, an access type of the network slice” – See Spec. [¶0031] and, also initiate random access to the second cell, whereby information regarding the second cell is obtained through legacy, i.e., unrelated to network slice, cell reselection criterion, e.g., S-criterion and R-criterion (taught by 3GPP TS 38.304 infra), in response to determining that the cell reselection based on (first) network slice information fails. Amended Claims 9 and 17 suffer the same deficiency.
Therefore, Amended Claims 1, 9, 17 and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, and 20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0023168 (hereinafter Gao), and further in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #113bis-e, R2-2102696, Agenda Item: 8.8.2., Title: “Slice specific cell reselection,” Source: Qualcomm, April 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP R2-2102696) and references included therein.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Gao teaches a method for random access, comprising performing, by a terminal device, random access based on required first network slice information (a “wireless communication method includes performing, by a communication device, a random access technique using one set of random access channel (RACH) configurations associated with a slice” – See [¶0011], whereby “the UE (or communication device) [is] receiving cell (re)selection information and/or RACH configuration per slice” – See [¶0036]; see also § 5.1.1, 3GPP TR 38.832:8 V1.0.0 (2021-3), “Technical Specification Group RAN; NR; Study on enhancement of Radio Access Network (RAN) slicing (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TR 38.832) defining slice information “[i]n case of cell selection and reselection, the intended slice means the allowed or requested S-NSSAI(s)” and “[f]or the initial registration, and requesting new S-NSSAI(s): intended slices = Requested S-NSSAI(s)” and proposing in Solution 3, at page 9, that “Slice related information for cell selection, e.g., the supported slice info of serving cell and neighboring cells, is provided in the system information”), comprising:
performing, by the terminal device, cell reselection based on the first network slice information to obtain a first cell (“the communication device selects or determines one set of cell selection related information associated with a slice,” e.g., the first network slice information, “and performs a cell selection technique using the one set of cell selection related information associated with the slice, where each set of cell selection related information is associated with one slice from the plurality of slices” – See [¶0157] and Fig. 2, i.e., obtain a first cell based on the selected first network slice information),
wherein the first cell is a current camping cell or a neighboring cell that supports the first network slice information and satisfies a first preset condition (the “UE receives the supported slice information with per slice priority of neighbor cells in system information” and “select[s] the first slice . . . in the allowed/request S-NSSAI(s) and apply the reselection priority configured for the first slice” – See [¶0139] and Table 13, whereby “the cell selection priority information indicates a cell selection priority value for a slice, and the cell selection priority value indicates a priority of (1) a cell associated with the slice or (2) a frequency associated with the slice” – See [¶0158], i.e., a first preset condition comprises the highest priority for the slice, e.g., as shown in Table 5 or Table 10);
and performing, by the terminal device, the said random access to the first cell (the selected cell “can define and assign . . . one or more RACH resources ID and be configured to reserved RACH resources specific for this slice” – See [¶0083], and the “UE applies the RACH configuration per slice . . . during random access procedure” – See [¶0103]).
Although Gao does not explicitly teach wherein the first preset condition comprises also a duration within which channel quality of the first cell is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration, this feature is taught by 3GPP R2-2102696.
Like Gao, § 2.4, 3GPP R2-2102696:4 teaches that “[t]o assist cell reselection, RAN can broadcast the supported slice info of the current cell and neighbour cells, and cell reselection priority per slice” as “captured in Section 5.5.1 of TR 38.832,” e.g., Solution 3 discussed above, whereby “Proposal 6: The signaling format to support slice specific cell reselection is: a list of {frequency, list of [Slice group ID, frequency priority value, list of PCIs]}, where frequency priority value reuse legacy range of 0-7” is similar to Table 5 or Table 10 of Gao.
Section 2.4.2, 3GPP R2-2102696:5-6 further teaches that the procedure for cell reselection based on slice priority information is a procedure that starts with considering “the serving frequency as highest priority” when the serving cell offers the intended slice, as taught in Gao, and, “for priority of neighbor frequencies,” in case they offer the slice with higher priority, the first preset condition further comprises, aside the higher priority of the slice, evaluation of channel quality of the cell as higher than a channel quality threshold, i.e., a criteria-S and a criteria-R (“[i]n one configured neighbor frequency, if (any) one cell provides slice with highest priority supported by the UE . . . [the] UE can temporally regard that frequency as high priority,” and “determine[] the highest ranked cell in that frequency based on calculated criteria-R and criteria-S,” to “derive[] the priority of that frequency with the priority value corresponding to the highest priority slice supported by the highest ranked cell,” i.e., measure the channel quality of the cell as higher than a channel quality threshold as explained below). Therefore, 3GPP R2-2102696 first teaches that the first preset condition in Gao comprising the condition that the selected cell/frequency offers the slice with the highest priority for the slice, as explained above, further comprises the condition that channel quality of the first cell is higher than a channel quality threshold, necessary to fulfill criteria-S and ranked based on criteria-R. Then, 3GPP R2-2102696 teaches by reference to 3GPP TS 38.304 that criteria-S and criteria-R, as defined in § 5.2.4, 3GPP TS 38.304, are cell measurements over a time duration configured to the UE. Specifically, § 2.4.5, 3GPP TS 38.304:24 teaches how the S criteria (i.e., measured Srxlev and Squal) are used in (re)selecting a cell that provides the slice with highest priority supported by the UE (“[a] cell of a higher priority RAT/ frequency fulfils Srxlev > ThreshX, HighP during a time interval TreselectionRAT,” whereby the time interval and signal quality threshold are known to the UE e.g., from system information). Furthermore, § 5.2.4.6 of 3GPP TS 38.304:25, defines ranking among equal priority cells/frequencies using the R criteria (“UE shall perform ranking of all cells that fulfil the cell selection criterion S, which is defined in 5.2.3.2” and “shall be ranked according to the R criteria . . . by deriving Qmeas,n and Qmeas,s and calculating the R values using averaged RSRP results,” whereby Qmeas is the RSRP measurement quantity used in cell reselections, i.e., over specific time intervals4)
Thus, Gao and 3GPP R2-2102696 each teaches slice specific cell reselection based on frequency priority relative to the slice. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the procedure for evaluating priority of neighbor frequencies in regards to a specific slice comprising a duration within which channel quality of the target cell is higher than a channel quality threshold being greater than or equal to a first duration, as taught in 3GPP R2-2102696, in addition to the cell/frequency offering the slice with a higher priority, as taught in Gao could have been substituted in for the step of cell reselection based on priority configured for the requested slice as taught in Gao, because the procedure taught in 3GPP R2-2102696 supports the frequency priority per slice taught in Gao. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the combination through techniques known in the art. Finally, the combination achieves the predictable result of minimum impact on standard specifications changes required to support in slice priority specific cell reselection, as taught by 3GPP R2-2102696.
In the alternative, 3GPP R2-2102696 further teaches that before initiating, by the terminal device, random access to the second cell, the UE may be performing cell reselection based on the first network slice information; in response to determining that the cell reselection fails, obtaining, by the terminal device, a second cell according to a legacy cell reselection criterion. First, based on the priority of neighbor frequencies procedure described above, the UE will attempt to remain in the serving cell offering the slice when the UE fails in reselecting a neighbor cell/frequency offering the same slice with a higher priority. However, when, at the same time with failing the reselection based on the first network slice information (i.e., the slice priority, as described above) the UE loses coverage in the original cell offering the slice (i.e., the cell the UE currently camps on fails the serving cell measurement “Srxlev > SIntraSearchP and Squal > SIntraSearchQ,” as provided in § 5.2.4.2, 3GPP TS 38.304:22) then the “UE shall apply the [] rules for NR inter-frequencies and inter-RAT frequencies which are indicated in system information,” i.e., select for the strongest frequency based on legacy criterion-S and criterion-R, among the “NR inter-frequency cells of equal or lower priority” – See id., i.e., “follow legacy way of NR / LTE cell reselection to only consider radio condition” – See Observation 5, § 2.4.1, 3GPP R2-2102696:5, because the (re)selecting cells offering the slice with the required priority procedure has failed. A person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that such behavior would assure minimum change to 3GPP specifications and compatibility for UEs not supporting the feature of slice specific cell reselection, as taught by 3GPP R2-2102696. Therefore, 3GPP R2-2102696 is combinable with Gao also in this alternative.
Because 3GPP R2-2102696 is combinable with Gao in both alternatives, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Claim 3, dependent from Claim 2, Gao further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein initiating, by the terminal device, the random access to the first cell comprises:
initiating, by the terminal device, the random access to the first cell based on an access resource of the first cell corresponding to the first network slice information (“If the BWP selected for Random Access procedure is configured with both 2-step and 4-step RA type Random Access Resources for the intended slice . . . . UE use the cell specific msgA-RSRP-Threshold to select RACH type” – See [¶0107]).
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Amended Claim 5, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Gao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first preset condition further comprises at least one of:
a frequency priority of the first cell being the highest (a frequency priority of the first cell being the highest (“the communication device performs the cell selection technique with a cell by using a cell selection priority value of . . . a frequency deployed by the cell, and the cell selection priority value is associated with the slice that is first in order in a list of slices in an allowed . . . in a requested S-NSSAI” – See [¶0158], i.e., select the cell with the highest frequency priority).
Section 2.4.2, 3GPP R2-2102696:6 teaches that when the first cell is a neighboring cell that supports the first network slice information, that cell “provides slice with highest priority supported by the UE,” and, in addition, that cell is the “highest ranked cell in that frequency based on calculated criteria-R and criteria-S,” i.e., the first cell satisfies an S criterion and the channel quality of the first cell is higher than the channel quality threshold, as explained in Amended Claim 1, supra.
Therefore, Amended Claim 5 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Amended Claim 6, dependent from Amended 1, Gao further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the terminal device performs the cell reselection based on the first network slice information (“a method 200 of performing a slice aware cell selection technique . . . using a one set of cell selection related information associated with a slice” – See [¶0156] and Fig. 2, i.e., based on the first network slice information, whereby “cell selection related information include a supported slice information for each slice” and “cell selection related information include a cell selection priority information for each slice . . . indicat[ing] a cell selection priority value for a slice, and the cell selection priority value indicates a priority of (1) a cell associated with the slice or (2) a frequency associated with the slice”– See [¶0158]).
Gao teaches reselection in at least one of the following cases (“UE applies the cell (re)selection information per slice during the cell (re)selection procedure may include the UE performing the following operations:” – See [¶0041]):
the neighboring cell supporting the first network slice information (for a UE camped on cell/F1, “the UE may determine that the frequency F2 (indicated in bold italicized text) is associated with the highest priority at least because the UE determines that F2 supports the first slice in the allowed/request S-NSSAI(s)” – See [¶0051] and Table 4);
a priority of supporting the first network slice information by the neighboring cell being higher than a priority of supporting the first network slice information by the current camping cell (for a UE camped on cell/F2, “the UE may determine that the frequency F3 (indicated in bold italicized text) will be considered as the highest priority at least because the UE determines that both F2 and F3 support the first slice but the common reselection priority configured for F3 is higher than that of F2” – See [¶0053] and Table 5);
the first network slice information being not allowed network slice information (for a UE camped on cell/F1 or F2, “the UE may determine that the frequency F3 (indicated in bold italicized text) is associated with the highest priority at least because the UE determines that F3 has the largest number of the supported slice overlapped with the allowed/request S-NSSAI(s)” – See [¶0049] and Table 3);
the first network slice information being obtained (“UE receives the supported slice information with per slice priority of neighbor cells in system information” whereby “UE select the first slice . . . in the allowed/request S-NSSAI(s) and apply the reselection priority configured for the first slice” – See [¶0139]);
the first network slice information being obtained before performing the random access, or before transmitting a message (MSG1), or before transmitting an MSGA (“[t]he redirection configuration per slice can be provided in RRCRelease message” – See [¶0148], then the “UE receives 2-step CFRA resources or 4-step CFRA resources configured for the intended slice and use the 2-step CFRA resources or 4-step CFRA resources to initiate random access to the target cell after handover” – See [¶0149]);
reselection indication information being received, where the reselection indication information is used to instruct the terminal device to perform the cell reselection (“the multiple sets of cell selection related information include a redirection target information for each slice” wherein “the redirection target information indicates a frequency to use for the cell selection technique for a slice” – See [¶0158], e.g., in Table 11, “the UE applies the redirection target information configured for slice #1 (shown in bold italicized text) at least because the UE determines that slice #1 is the first slice in the allowed/requested S-NSSAI(s)” – See [¶0068]);
the cell reselection being supported by the terminal device (“the communication device selects or determines one set of cell selection related information associated with a slice from multiple sets of cell selection related information” and “performs a cell selection technique using the one set of cell selection related information associated with the slice” – See [¶0007]);
Therefore, Amended Claim 6 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Gao further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein performing, by the terminal device, the random access based on the required first network slice information further comprises:
obtaining, by the terminal device, the first network slice information (“a UE receives cell (re)selection information and/or RACH configuration per slice” – See [¶0034], whereby “the RACH configuration per slice . . . may include any one or more of the following: 2-step and/or 4-step RACH common and dedicated resources (e.g., RACH occasions (ROs) in frequency and time domain and/or preambles) for a slice” – See [¶¶0071-72]); and
performing, by the terminal device, the random access based on the first network slice information (the “UE applies the RACH configuration per slice . . . during random access procedure” – See [¶0103] and Fig. 3).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, dependent from Claim 7, Gao further teaches the method of claim 7, wherein obtaining, by the terminal device, the first network slice information comprises:
obtaining, by the terminal device, the first network slice information before transmitting a message (MSG1) or an MSGA to a network device, or before triggering a random access procedure (“UE will take one or more of the following information into consideration when selecting the RACH resources used for random access” – See [¶0131], i.e., before transmitting a message (MSG1) or an MSGA to a network device before triggering a random access: “The intended slice” – See [¶0132], i.e., obtaining the RACH configuration for that slice, e.g., “UE receives 2-step CFRA resources or 4-step CFRA resources configured for the intended slice” – See [¶0149], and/or “UE initiating small data transmission” – See [¶0133], i.e., UE whether sends data with MSGA).
Therefore, Amended Claim 8 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Amended Claim 9, Gao teaches a terminal device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing a computer program executable by the processor (“an apparatus for wireless communication comprising a processor, configured to implement operations recited for method(s) [disclosed]” including “non-transitory computer readable program storage medium having code stored thereon, the code, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to implement operations recited for method(s) [disclosed] – See [¶0172], in a “wireless communication system ( e.g., a 5G or NR cellular network) that includes . . . one or more user equipment (UE)” – See [¶0174] and Fig. 6). Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696 further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform random access based on required first network slice information (“UE applies the RACH configuration per slice . . . during random access procedure” – See Gao:[¶¶0191-95]) with the same limitations as recited in Amended Claim 1. Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696, Amended Claim 9 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Claims 11, and 13-16, as amended, they merely recite the same limitations as recited in Claims 3, and 5-8, respectively, as amended, using the same language, only applied to the terminal device of Amended Claim 9. Because each of the claims 3, and 5-9, as amended, is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696, Claims 11, and 13-16, as amended, are obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Amended Claim 17, Gao teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program (“methods or processes, which may be implemented in one embodiment by a computer program product, embodied in a computer-readable medium, including computer-executable instructions, such as program code, executed by computers in networked environments” and “Computer or processor-executable instructions, associated data structures, and program modules represent examples of program code for executing steps of the methods disclosed” – See [¶0197]). Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696 further teaches the computer program when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising the operations in Amended Claim1.
Therefore, Amended Claim 17 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Regarding Claim 20, dependent from Amended Claim 17, Gao further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein performing the random access based on the required first network slice information further comprises:
obtaining the first network slice information (“UE receives the supported slice information with per slice priority of neighbor cells in system information” – See [¶0139]); and performing the random access based on the first network slice information (a “UE [that] receives . . . RACH configuration per slice/service type and the UE applies the . . . RACH configuration during . . . random access procedure for a certain slice/service type” – See [¶0034] and Fig. 3).
Therefore, Claim 20 is obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
In sum, Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17, and 20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Gao in view of 3GPP R2-2102696.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0015784 discloses techniques provide for efficient methods for a device ( e.g., a user equipment (UE)) to gain access a network slice (e.g., service), such as via a cell supporting the network slice including slice dependent random access channel procedures;
Jung et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0124571 discloses a user equipment (UE) determining reselection information for a cell reselection based on validity information including a network slice identifier (ID), and perform the cell reselection based on the determined reselection information;
Park et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0114440 discloses methods of cell (re)selection and random access including support for network slices;
Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0015784 discloses techniques for selecting a slice-based random access procedure;
Jiang, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0192445 discloses determining at least one suitable cell according to the slice configuration information;
3GPP TS 38.304 V16.4.0 (2021-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) procedures in Idle mode and RRC Inactive state (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.133 V17.1.0 (2021-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Requirements for support of radio resource management (Release 17)”;
3GPP TR 38.832 V1.0.0 (2021-3), “Technical Specification Group RAN; NR; Study on enhancement of Radio Access Network (RAN) slicing (Release 17)”;
3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #113bis-e, draft-R2-2104321, Agenda Item: 8.8.2., Title: “Summary of [AT113b-e][251][NR] Slice-specific cell reselection (Intel),” Source: Intel Corporation (rapporteur), April, 2021;
3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #113bis-e, R2-2104322, Agenda Item: 8.8.3., Title: “Summary for [AT113bis-e][252][NR] Slice-specific RACH,” Source: CMCC, April, 2021;
3GPP TSG RAN Meeting #91e, RP-210912, Title: “New WID on enhancement of RAN Slicing for NR,” Source: CMCC, March 2021,
Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 meeting #113-e, R2-2102601, Source: CMCC, April 2021;
Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 meeting #113bis-e, R2-2106641, Source ETSI MCC, May 2021 (referenced contributions published in April 2021).
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 LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 A person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that cell reselection should not happen on instantaneous measurements of Srxlev/Squal because in that case every spike in measured signal quality would trigger reselection draining the UE battery. Section 5.2.4.7, 3GPP 38.304:25-28 further defines general reselection parameters, including TreselectionRAT , pointing for example to NR specification 3GPP TS 38.331 V16.4.1 (2021-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331) for details, showing TreselectionNR being within seconds.
2 See 3GPP R2-2102696 reference [1]: 3GPP TSG RAN Meeting #91e, RP-210912, Title: “New WID on enhancement of RAN Slicing for NR,” Source: CMCC, March 2021, and RAN2 member companies contributions on Agenda Items 8.8.1-3 referenced in Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 meeting #113-e, R2-2102601, Source: CMCC, April 2021, and in Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 meeting #113bis-e, R2-2106641, Source ETSI MCC, May 2021 (referenced contributions were published in April 2021); see also 3GPP R2-2102696 reference [2]: 3GPP TR 38.832 V1.0.0 (2021-3), “Technical Specification Group RAN; NR; Study on enhancement of Radio Access Network (RAN) slicing (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TR 38.832)
3 A person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate this “legacy” UE behavior is necessary to support basic services and/or emergency services, i.e., services for which special characteristics of the intended S-NSSAI are not required.
4 Section 4.2, 3GPP TS 38.133 V17.1.0 (2021-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
NR; Requirements for support of radio resource management (Release 17)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.133), referenced by 3GPP TS 38.304:22 for measurement rules for cell reselection, at defines the “SS-RSRP SS-RSRQ level of the serving cell and evaluate the cell selection criterion S defined in TS 38.304 [1]” for the serving cell, at page 55 and Table 4.2.2.2-1, as well as for intra-frequency and inter-frequency NR cells measurements at page 55-57 and Tables 4.2.2.3-1&2 and 4.2.2.4-1.