DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the present application on 05/15/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Reference Application 18/043922 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 11/24/2025 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1, 29-56 and 58, as amended, are pending. Claim 57 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 11/24/2025 (hereinafter Resp.) regarding using slice priority level to select whether the UE accessing the slice uses two-step random access procedure or a four-step random access procedure have been fully considered but they are not persuasive – See Resp.:15.
First, Applicant argues that in Nuggehalli et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0300739 (hereinafter Nuggehalli), the “priority mechanism is not used to ‘select between’ different types of access procedures. Rather, Nuggehalli's description is focused on using the slice priority to determine which slice should be attempted to access first” – See id., ¶2. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s reading of Nuggehalli noting that a reasonable interpretation of “using the slice priority to determine which slice should be attempted to access first” is using slice priority to get faster access to the corresponding data channel, and that means using two-step RA procedure instead of four-step RA procedure because a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that a the former procedure is faster than the latter – See, e.g., [¶0093] (“To obtain channel access for the first network slice data, the UE 102 initiates a two-step RACH procedure,” the first network slice “having a higher priority than the second network slice (or its associated data)”); see also MPEP ¶02144.01 (“[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968)). This understanding is enforced by Nuggehalli supporting/teaching a threshold of priority level as one quantity that can be used to discriminate between using two-step or four-step random access for the respective slice – See [¶0040] (e.g., when “all desired slices that have at least a threshold priority level” are configured by the base station with both two-step and four-step RA, the UE decides to use two-step RA for faster access). To be sure, there is no teaching in Nuggehalli, that “the UE is not given flexibility to ‘select between’ RACH procedure types based on ‘whether a priority level of the service satisfies a threshold priority level,’” contrary to Applicant’s allegation – See Resp.,15:¶3. A person of ordinary skills in the art would know that when a cell/service/slice is configured with both two-step and four-step, the UE can choose between the two procedures based on some criteria – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.321 V16.3.0 (2020-12), "Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 16)," published January 7, 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.321), describing, at page 16, that a UE could use, e.g., a signal strength threshold, msgA-RSRP-Threshold, as “threshold for selection between 2-step RA type and 4-step RA type when both 2-step and 4-step RA type Random Access Resources are configured in the UL BWP.” It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to substitute the RSRP threshold parameter taught in 3GPP TS 38.321 with the priority threshold parameter taught by Nuggehalli and arrive at the present invention motivated by the need of faster access to higher priority slices.
Therefore, the amendment to independent claims is obvious in view of Nuggehalli and TS 38.321.
Second, Applicant’s argument with respect to amended claims 1, 29 and 58 is also moot because the new ground of rejection under Li et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0199859 teaching the matter specifically challenged in the argument – See, e.g., [¶0190] (“for 2-step RACH and/or 4-step RACH, a network node 104 may configure different random- access preamble configurations (e.g., PRACH occasions, preamble index, or preamble format) for different UE/service groups that are associated to different priorities, different service types, or/and different network slice IDs. In some aspects, a UE 102 may select which configuration to use for the random-access preamble transmission based on the associated group of its access request”).
In sum, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are either unpersuasive or moot.
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, 29-51 and 55-58, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0292372 (hereinafter Kang), and further in view of Li et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0199859 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Kang teaches a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (“method for a terminal to process network slice-based system access configuration information in a wireless communication system” – See [¶0010], and “the disclosure describes embodiments using terms used in some communication standards ( e.g., 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP))“ – See [¶0048]), comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a random access configuration for performance, by the UE, of random access with a physical network (“system access configuration information of the terminal may be transmitted while being included in a system broadcast message SIB1” and may include “the InitialUplinkBWP information may include rach-ConfigCommon information, and the rach-ConfigCommon information may include system access configuration information of a general terminal” – See [¶0088] and Table 21, indicating parameters for RACH on the physical network on the initial UL BWP);
identifying a service to be accessed by the UE, the service supported by a logical network associated with the physical network (the “5G system in order to support network automation” uses network functions and network slicing2, e.g., , “a network data collection and analysis function (NWDAF), which is a network function that provides a function of analyzing and providing data collected in a 5G network” and “results to unspecified network functions (NFs), and the analysis results may be used independently in each NF,” such as core NF, RAN NF, AMF NF, whereby NFs and the associated resources support network slices, as logical networks – See Note2, so that the “network may provide one or multiple vertical slices and service,” e.g., as described in Table 13 showing “slice/service type (SST) values of the corresponding slices/services” – See [¶0085]; furthermore, “[t]he network slice selection assistance information (NSSAI) . . . may indicate a network slice/service, and be composed of a slice/service type (SST) or an SST and a slice differentiator (SD)” – See [¶0091] and Table 3);
selecting a service-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the random access configuration and the service to be accessed by the UE (“system access configuration information (random access configuration) may be configured for each slice/service” – See [¶0086], e.g., “the InitialUplinkBWP information may include at least one or a combination of rach-ConfigCommonSliceA information, rach-ConfigCommonSliceB information to rach-ConfigCommonSliceN information indicating system access configuration information of terminals interested in a slice/service A, a slice/service B, or a slice/service N,” i.e., “independent system access configuration information for each slice/service” – See [¶0093]; furthermore “slice/service-based system access configuration information . . . may configure different RACH resources for one or multiple slices/services” – See [¶0094], whereby “the RACH resource configured to one or multiple slices/services in which the terminal acquires based on slice/service identification information of interest thereof may include at least one of a RACH occasion, a PRACH preamble, or a combination thereof” – See [¶0096], and “[t]he slice/service-based system access configuration information may be provided to a terminal in a radio resource control (RRC) connection state through dedicated RRC signaling, wherein the dedicated RRC signaling may provide slice specific RACH-Dedicated configuration information” which “may configure different RACH resources to one or multiple slices/service NSSAI” – See [¶0105]; therefore the terminal selects service specific RACH resource configuration and the RA procedure indicated in RACH-Dedicated configuration information4 for the service); and
performing a service-based random access procedure in accordance with the service-based random access procedure type (“The terminal may perform a system access procedure using a RACH resource configured to the slice/service based on slice/ service NSSAI of interest thereof” – See id., whereby the RA procedure is configured, e.g., by RACH-Dedicated configuration information or by rach-ConfigCommonSlice configuration information, as explained, supra).
Kang further teaches a priority level associated with the access to a network service/slice (“Slice/service-based system access configuration information transmitted through the system broadcast message formed in FIGS. 6A and 6B uses the same RACH resource, but may be configured in a manner that applies different prioritization parameters for each slice/service” – See [¶0097], Figs. 6A and 6B, and “[i]n the case that one cell supports one or more slices/services, system access configuration information including a prioritization parameter to be applied to one or multiple slices/service NSSAI may be formed and provided to the terminal” – See [¶0099]; in addition, an “access category . . . configured to each slice/ service may, for example, use values of 32 to 63 reserved for use by the operator” and the “value for a slice/service configured by the service provider may be transmitted to the terminal” as prioritization parameter – See [¶0168] and Table 8 showing Access Categories for the service/slice types accessed by the UE)
wherein selection of the slice-based random access procedure type is based at least in part on the priority level of the network slice (“The terminal may perform a system access procedure using a RACH resource and/or prioritization parameter configured to a slice/service” – See [¶0099] and Table 4, whereby “rachConfigCommon information may include SupportedSliceinfo information and RA-Prioritization information corresponding thereto”; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:561; in addition, the RACH-ConfigDedicated for a slice may also contain ra-PrioritizationTwoStep instead of ra-Prioritization to indicate a prioritized 2-step random access type procedure – See 3GPP TS 38.331: 557; furthermore, for services using “an access category parameter of a system access control configuration,” – See [¶0167] and Table 8, the terminal may “perform . . . service access procedure with reference to other configuration information (frequency, cell, priority) of the corresponding slice” – See [¶¶0175,0177], whereby the level of priority may be correlated with the access category number using Access Identity in decreasing order, as shown in Table 8; see also Table 2, showing ra-PrioritizationForAccessidentity or ra-PrioritizationForAI in the RACH-ConfigCommon IE; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:550 (describing ra-PrioritizationForAI); i.e., the slice-based random access procedure type is based at least in part on the priority level of the network slice5 configured through RACH-ConfigDedicated of the slice and/or through RACH-ConfigCommon of the slice/service-based system).
While Kang does not explicitly teach the UE choosing two-step RA to access a slice with a priority level above a threshold and four-step RA for a slice with the priority level is less than the threshold priority level, this feature would be obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art because: (1) Kang teaches that the UE may “perform an MT service access procedure with reference to other configuration information (frequency, cell, priority) of the corresponding slice” – See [¶0175] whereby “Slice/service-based system access configuration information transmitted through the system broadcast message formed in FIGS. 6A and 6B uses the same RACH resource, but may be configured in a manner that applies different prioritization parameters for each slice/service” – See [¶0097], e.g., slices requiring faster access such as ultra-reliable low latency (URLLC) service shown in Table 1 would use two-step RA; (2) there are only two types of RA procedure, two-step and four-step, but multiple levels of priority based on service/slice access categories as shown in Table 8, therefore a threshold of priority to distinguish between the fast access two-step RA slices and slower-access four-step RA slices would be apparent to one of ordinary skills in the art – See MPEP §2141.03 (“A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421).
In the alternative, Li teaches wherein the selecting comprises selecting between a two-step service-based random access procedure and a four-step service-based random access procedure based at least in part on whether a priority level of the service satisfies a threshold priority level (“for 2-step RACH and/or 4-step RACH, a network node 104 may configure different random-access preamble configurations (e.g., PRACH occasions, preamble index, or preamble format) for different UE/service groups that are associated to different priorities, different service types, or/and different network slice IDs. In some aspects, a UE 102 may select which configuration to use for the random-access preamble transmission based on the associated group of its access request,” i.e., based on the associated priority level – See [¶0190] and Fig. 15, whereby the UE distinguishes “[t]he RACH occasions for 2-step RACH shown in FIG. 2 [because they] can be either separately configured (also known as Type-2 random access procedure with separate configuration of PRACH occasions with Type-1 random access procedure) or are shared with 4-step RACH (also known as Type-2 random access procedure with common configuration of PRACH occasions with Type-1 random access procedure) in which case different set of preamble IDs will be used” – See [¶0042]), and wherein:
the two-step service-based random access procedure is selected when the priority level is greater than the threshold priority level (because “[f]or a 2-step RA procedure, the reliability of msgA preamble part and PUSCH part might be quite different due to the PUSCH colliding in 2-step RACH while msg3 PUSCH in 4-step RACH is dynamically scheduled by RAR (for initial transmission)” then “the msgA PUSCH resource used for higher priority may be prioritized so that the msgA PUSCH performance can be assured” – See [¶0070], therefore, 2-step RA will be selected for higher priority level access because resources for 2-step RA are prioritized over 4-step RA)
and the four-step service-based random access procedure is selected when the priority level is less than the threshold priority level (e.g., in Fig. 15, “step 1506 may be based on a priority of the service” whereby “the first group may be associated with a first priority, the second group may be associated with a second priority, the second priority may be higher than the first priority, the first PRACH may be selected in step 1506 if the service has the first priority,” e.g., the first PRACH is Msg1 of a 4-step RA, “and the second PRACH may be selected in step 1506 if the service has the second priority,” e.g., the second PRACH starts with msgA of a 2-step RA– See [¶0200]). The fundamental teaching of Li is that the type of random access procedure selected by the UE is an indication for the network regarding the priority of the service requested, i.e., the UE selects “a service-based random access procedure” as required in Amended Claim 1 – See, e.g., [¶0224] (“the service may be determined to have the first priority in step 1710 if the PRACH configuration of the received random access preamble may be determined to be a first PRACH configuration, the service may be determined to have the second priority in step 1712 if the PRACH configuration of the received random access preamble is determined to be a second PRACH configuration, and the second priority may be higher than the first priority”). Because, at minimum, the UE may select between two types of RA procedures, it follows that the higher priority services, e.g., the second group, supra, will have priority higher than a threshold distinguishing this group from the lower priority services, e.g., the first group, supra.
Thus, Kang and Li each discloses a UE that may be configured for Random Access procedures using different random access configurations based at least in part on the priority of the service/slice accessed by the UE. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the UE selecting a two-step service-based random access procedure because msgA PUSCH resource is configured for higher priority hence it may be prioritized by the network so that the msgA PUSCH performance can be assured can be combined with the step of the UE selecting an access procedure with reference to other configuration information (frequency, cell, priority) of the corresponding slice, as taught in Kang, because both actions prioritize access for higher priority services/slices. 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 indicating to the network that the UE is accessing a higher priority slice or a lower priority slice, as taught in Li, when the Access Categories are not used to distinguish among different service/slice level priorities, as possible in Kang.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Knag in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 29, Kang further teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (“a terminal acquires network slice-based system access configuration information and performs a system access procedure in a wireless communication system” – See [¶0010]), comprising: a processor (“the terminal 120 includes a communication unit 310, a storage 320, and a controller 330” whereby “the controller 330 may include one or more processors” – See [¶0067] and Fig. 3); memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (“storage 320 stores data such as a basic program, an application program, and configuration information for an operation of the terminal 120” and “provides stored data according to the request of the controller 330” – See [¶0071] and Fig. 3); to cause the apparatus to perform the steps of Claim1 (“the controller 330 may control the terminal 120 to perform operations according to embodiments to be described,” e.g., in Regarding Amended Claim 1, supra – See [¶0072]). Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Kang in view of Li, Amended Claim 29 is also obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 30, dependent from Amended Claim 29, Kang further teaches wherein:
the service supported by the logical network associated with the physical network is a network slice ( the “network may provide one or multiple vertical slices and services . . . identified by slice/service type (SST) values of the corresponding slices/services” – See [¶0085] and Table 1, and “the identification information may be indicated by NSSAI of the corresponding network slice or may be composed of a slice ID mapped to the NSSAI of the corresponding network slice in addition to an identity (ID) of a slice group including the corresponding network slice” – See [¶0092]), and
the service-based random access procedure type is a slice-based random access procedure type (“the dedicated RRC signaling may provide slice specific RACH-Dedicated configuration information” which “may configure different RACH resources to one or multiple slices/service NSSAI” – See [¶0105], including a slice-based random access procedure type that is defined in the RACH-Dedicated configuration information, as explained in Regarding Claim 1, supra), and
the service-based random access procedure is a slice-based random access procedure (“in the case of configuring an initial BWP for each slice/service, the terminal may transmit a RACH preamble in an initial BWP corresponding to a slice/service of interest, and stand by to receive a random access response (RAR) message, which is a response thereto in the initial BWP corresponding to the slice/service” – See [¶0141], whereby the slice/service-based random access procedure wherein a RAN selects and AMF based on the NSSAI provided by the UE is further described in §16.3.4.2 of 3GPP TS 38.300 V16.4.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16),” published January 6, 2021; at pages 120-121 – See e.g., Figure 16.3.4.2-1, id.).
Therefore, Claim 30 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 31, dependent from Claim 30, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication that the network slice is associated with the priority level (“Slice/service-based system access configuration information transmitted through the system broadcast message formed in FIGS. 6A and 6B uses the same RACH resource, but may be configured in a manner that applies different prioritization parameters for each slice/service” – See [¶0097], Figs. 6A and 6B, and “[i]n the case that one cell supports one or more slices/services, system access configuration information including a prioritization parameter to be applied to one or multiple slices/service NSSAI may be formed and provided to the terminal” – See [¶0099]; in addition, an “access category . . . configured to each slice/ service may, for example, use values of 32 to 63 reserved for use by the operator” and the “value for a slice/service configured by the service provider may be transmitted to the terminal” as prioritization parameter – See [¶0168] and Table 8)
wherein selection of the slice-based random access procedure type is based at least in part on the priority level of the network slice (“The terminal may perform a system access procedure using a RACH resource and/or prioritization parameter configured to a slice/service” – See [¶0099] and Table 4, wherein the powerRampingStepHighPriority parameter of the RA-Prioritization IE indicates a prioritized random access procedure indicating different levels for different slices/services – See [¶¶0097-98] wherein “rachConfigCommon information may include SupportedSliceinfo information and RA-Prioritization information corresponding thereto”; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:561; in addition, the RACH-ConfigDedicated for a slice may also contain ra-PrioritizationTwoStep instead of ra-Prioritization to indicate a prioritized 2-step random access type procedure – See 3GPP TS 38.331: 557; yet furthermore, for services using “an access category parameter of a system access control configuration,” – See [¶0167] and Table 8, the terminal may “perform . . . service access procedure with reference to other configuration information (frequency, cell, priority) of the corresponding slice” – See [¶¶0175,0177], whereby the level of priority may be correlated with the access category number using Access Identity in decreasing order, as shown in Table 8; see also Table 2, showing ra-PrioritizationForAccessidentity or ra-PrioritizationForAI in the RACH-ConfigCommon IE; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:550 (describing ra-PrioritizationForAI); i.e., the slice-based random access procedure type is based at least in part on the priority level of the network slice6 configured through RACH-ConfigDedicated of the slice and/or through RACH-ConfigCommon of the slice/service-based system).
Therefore, Claim 31 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 32, dependent from Claim 31, while Kang teaches the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the instructions to select the slice-based random access procedure type are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine the priority level (the terminal may “perform . . . service access procedure with reference to other configuration information (frequency, cell, priority) of the corresponding slice” – See [¶¶0175,0177]; whereby the level of priority may be correlated with the access category number using Access Identity in decreasing order, as shown in Table 8 and “Slice/service-based system access configuration information transmitted” to the UE may use “the same RACH resource, but may be configured in a manner that applies different prioritization parameters for each slice/service” – See [¶0097], e.g., slices requiring faster access such as ultra-reliable low latency (URLLC) service shown in Table 1 may use faster RACH access), Kang does not explicitly teach a threshold priority to distinguish between 2-step and 4-step RA.
Li teaches determine that the priority level is greater than a threshold priority level select a two-step slice-based random access procedure as the slice-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the priority level being greater than the threshold priority level, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 29, supra.
Therefore, Amended Claim 32 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 33, dependent from Claim 31, while Kang teaches the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the instructions to select the slice-based random access procedure type are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine the priority level, Kang does not explicitly teach a threshold priority to distinguish between 2-step and 4-step RA.
Li teaches wherein the instructions to select the slice-based random access procedure type are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine that the priority level is less than a threshold priority level; and select a four-step slice-based random access procedure as the slice-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the priority level being less than the threshold priority level, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 29, supra.
Therefore, Amended Claim 33 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 34, dependent from Claim 30, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication that the network slice is associated with the priority level and that the priority level is associated with a reference signal received power threshold (“In the case that one cell supports one or more slices/services, system access configuration information including a prioritization parameter to be applied to one or multiple slices/service NSSAI may be formed and provided to the terminal” – See [¶0099]; furthermore, the “slice/service-based system access configuration information . . . may configure different RACH resources for [the] one or multiple slices/services” and “the different RACH resources may correspond to different uplink carriers (NUL/normal uplink, SUL/supplementary uplink)” – See [¶0094]; then, a higher priority slice is accessed, e.g., through NUL-higher priority: “[t]he terminal may determine through which uplink of NUL or SUL should perform a system access procedure based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement value” – See [¶0123], whereby the measured RSRP value may be compared with a threshold, e.g., rsrp-ThresholdSSB and rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL parameters configured in the RACH-ConfigCommon IE as shown in Table 2-continued),
wherein selection of the slice-based random access procedure type is based at least in part on the priority level of the network slice and satisfaction of the reference signal received power threshold (e.g., “If it is determined that system access configuration information on a slice/service is configured to both the SUL and the NUL” and the “RSRP measurement value is greater than or equal to the threshold,” then the “terminal may determine to select the NUL in step 914. In step 916, the terminal may perform a system access procedure using system access configuration information on a slice/service in the selected NUL” – See [¶0129] and Fig. 9, i.e., using the prioritization parameters configured for that specific slice and the satisfaction of the RSRP threshold).
To be sure, 3GPP TS 38.321 included by reference in Li – See [¶0182], teaches at page 16 that a UE could use a signal strength threshold, msgA-RSRP-Threshold, as “threshold for selection between 2-step RA type and 4-step RA type when both 2-step and 4-step RA type Random Access Resources are configured in the UL BWP.” Therefore, msgA-RSRP-Threshold parameter received by the UE is an indication that a priority level expressed as faster access to the data channel through 2-step RA procedure type is associated with a reference signal received power threshold, hence the UE perform selection of the slice-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the priority level of the network slice and satisfaction of the reference signal received power threshold.
Therefore, Amended Claim 34 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 35, dependent from Amended Claim 34, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions to select the slice-based random access procedure type are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine that a measured reference signal received power is greater than the reference signal received power threshold (“If it is determined that system access configuration information on a slice/service of interest is provided only in one uplink of either the NUL or the SUL . . . terminal operation will be described with reference to FIG. 10” – See [¶0124], whereby “[t]he terminal may measure an RSRP value of a cell in step 1004” and “[i]f it is determined that an RSRP measurement value is greater than or equal to the threshold in step 1006, the terminal may determine to select the NUL in step 1012” – See [¶0135] and Fig. 10; furthermore, the measured RSRP value is compared with a msgA-RSRP-Threshold configured in the RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA IE, when the NUL is configured for both 2-step and 4-step RA type through RACH-ConfigCommon IE7 – See 3GPP TS 38.331:551-55 for RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA IE description); and
select a two-step slice-based random access procedure as the slice-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the measured reference signal received power being greater than the reference signal received power threshold (“The terminal may perform a system access procedure using slice/service system access configuration information in the NUL selected in step 1014” – See id., whereby for the NUL and/or the desired slice, e.g., slice/service1 in Fig. 8, the RACH-ConfigCommon IE and RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA are transmitted to the UE, e.g., through SIB or a previous RRC message – See [¶0088] and Table 2, and the measured RSRP level on the NUL is higher than msgA-RSRP-Threshold to allow 2-step RA; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:551-554 showing that 2StepOnly condition “is mandatory present if there are no 4-step random access configurations configured in the BWP, i.e only 2-step random access type configured in the BWP,” and can similarly be applied to a RACH-ConfigCommonSlice as explained in [¶0090] (“ Slice/service information to which rach-ConfigCommon information is to be applied may be indicated by a rach-ConfigCommonSlice”)).
Therefore, Claim 35 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 36, dependent from Amended Claim 34, Kang further teaches
wherein the instructions to select the slice-based random access procedure type are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine that a measured reference signal received power is less than the reference signal received power threshold (“If it is determined that system access configuration information on a slice/service of interest is provided only in one uplink of either the NUL or the SUL . . . terminal operation will be described with reference to FIG. 10” – See [¶0124], whereby “[t]he terminal may measure an RSRP value of a cell in step 1004. If it is determined that an RSRP measurement value is smaller than a threshold in step 1006, the terminal may determine to select the SUL in step 1008” – See [¶0135] and Fig. 10); and
select a four-step slice-based random access procedure as the slice-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the measured reference signal received power being less than the reference signal received power threshold (“The terminal may perform a system access procedure using slice/service system access configuration information in the SUL selected in step 1010” – See id., and Fig. 10 whereby the measured RSRP value is also lower than msgA-RSRP-Threshold that would allow 2-step RA on the SUL when the SUL is configured for both 2-step and 4-step access and UE received RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA and RACH-ConfigCommon for the SUL BWP or a slice accessible on the SUL BWP).
Therefore, Claim 36 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 37, dependent from Amended Claim 34, Kang discloses different priority levels associated with network service/slice, e.g., based on Access Category, as explained in Regarding Amended Claims 1 and Claim 29, supra, including prioritization for certain services/slices using ra-priorityForAccessIdentity parameter disclosed in Table 2 and further discussed in 3GPP TS 38.331:549 (ra-PrioritizationForAI “[i]ndicates whether the field ra-Prioritization-r16 applies for Access Identities. The first/leftmost bit corresponds to Access Identity 1, the next bit corresponds to Access Identity 2”). Li, including by reference 3GPP TS 38.321, teaches that msgA-RSRP-Threshold parameter received by the UE is an indication that a priority level (expressed as faster access to the data channel through 2-step RA procedure type) is associated with a reference signal received power threshold, hence the UE performing selection of a two-step RA procedure (when signal level is above msgA-RSRP-Threshold) indicates a service/slice group wherein the priority level is greater than the threshold priority level – See, e.g., [¶0200] and Fig. 15 (“ the first group may be associated with a first priority, the second group may be associated with a second priority, the second priority may be higher than the first priority, the first PRACH,” e.g., Msg1 of a 4-step RA “may be selected in step 1506 if the service has the first priority, and the second PRACH,” e.g., msgA of a 2-step RA “may be selected in step 1506 if the service has the second priority”).
Therefore, Amended Claim 37 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 38, dependent from Claim 30, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication of a first random access procedure threshold for attempting random access with the physical network using the slice-based random access procedure type ( a set of parameters that may used as a threshold are received when the UE receives “[t]he slice/service-based system access configuration information formed in FIGS. 6A and 6B [which] may configure different RACH resources for one or multiple slices/services . . . at least one of a time, frequency, power ramping step, scaling factor backoff indicator (BI), or PRACH mask index, or a combination thereof” whereby “[t]he different RACH resources may correspond to different bandwidth parts (BWPs)” of the physical network – See [¶0094]; the UE in RRC connected mode may also receive “Slice specific RACH-Dedicated configuration information” to “configure different RACH resources to one or multiple slices/service NSSAI in the same manner as that of the case of RACH-ConfigCommon of FIGS. 6Aand 6B,” with parameters specific to accessing slice/service1 in addition to RACH-ConfigCommonSlice configuration – See [¶0105]; therefore, a first random access procedure threshold for attempting random access with the physical network may be any one of: (1) a RSRP threshold (msgA-RSRP-ThresholdSSB and/or msgA-RSRP-Threshold parameters in a RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA and/or RACH-ConfigCommon, as shown in Table 2 and further detailed in 3GPP TS 38.331), i.e., the measured RSRP must be higher than these thresholds to use a 2-step RA procedure type, because a RACH resource on a BWP can be configured with both 2-step and 4-step RA; (2) the preambleTransMax parameter8 for a 4-step RA type procedure, whereby the parameter is defined in rach-ConfigGeneric IE included in the RACH-ConfigCommon shown in Table 2, and/or the msgA-TransMax parameter9 for 2-step RA procedure type received through RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA configuration – See 3GPP TS 38.331:554-559).
Therefore, Claim 38 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 39, dependent from Claim 38, Kang further teaches wherein the first random access procedure threshold is a duration of time (e.g., the combination of msgB-ResponseWindow and msgA-TransMax configured for a 2-step RA procedure type is a timer threshold – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.331:550; while the combination of ra-ResponseWindow with preambleTransMax configured for a 4-step RA procedure type is another timer threshold, wherein the ra-ResponseWindow is a RACH-Config parameter through the rach-ConfigGeneric IE of the RACH-ConfigCommon structure shown in Table 2 and used to time for how long “the terminal may determine to receive a response message to the RACH message 1 (or a first message of step 2 random access)” in response to “transmits an RACH message 1 ( or a first message of step 2 random access) . . . using system access configuration information on a slice/service of interest” before making a new attempt – See [¶0145]).
Therefore, Claim 39 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 40, dependent from Claim 38, Kang further teaches wherein the first random access procedure threshold is a number of attempts (the rach-ConfigGeneric IE included in the RACH-ConfigCommon shown in Table 2 comprises a preambleTransMax parameter for 4-step RA type and msgA-TransMax for 2-step RA type).
Therefore, Claim 40 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 41, dependent from Claim 38, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
attempt to perform the slice-based random access procedure until the first random access procedure threshold is satisfied ( “in the case of configuring an initial BWP for each slice/service” e.g., for slice/service1 configured through RACH-ConfigCommonSlice1 and use preambleTransMax and ra-ResponseWindow parameters in a 4-step procedure as explained above, “the terminal may transmit a RACH preamble in an initial BWP corresponding to a slice/service of interest, and stand by to receive a random access response (RAR) message, which is a response thereto in the initial BWP corresponding to the slice/service” – See [¶0141] until ra-ResponseWindow times out a preambleTransMax+1 number of times); and
switch to a common random access procedure based at least in part on satisfaction of the first random access procedure threshold (“If it is determined that both the NUL and the SUL do not provide system access configuration information on a slice/service of interest,” e.g., because the threshold based on RACH-ConfigCommonSlice1 for accessing slice/service1 expired, “the terminal may determine to perform a system access procedure using general system access configuration information in the uplink selected based on an RSRP measurement value” – See [¶0124], i.e., using the RACH-ConfigCommon RA procedure configuration of the NUL, because “[g]eneral system access configuration information should be configured in an uplink corresponding to a NUL” – See [¶0118]).
Therefore, Claim 41 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 42, dependent from Claim 41, Kang further teaches wherein the UE switches to a two-step common random access procedure based at least in part on the slice-based random access procedure type being a two-step slice-based random access procedure (e.g., when for slice/service1 is configured with RACH-Dedicated configuration on the NUL BWP and the configuration does not allow switching from 2-step RA type to 4-step RA type, e.g., because msgA-TransMax parameter is not configured in RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA – See 3GPP TS 38.331:557, then “the terminal may determine to perform a system access procedure using general system access configuration information in the uplink selected based on an RSRP measurement value” – See [¶0124] first, because the slice1 does not have a failback 4-step RA procedure, then because the common procedure may be a 2-step procedure since access to the uplink BWP was so configured through RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA or because the measured RSRP value is higher than the threshold for a 2-step RA procedure, or both).
Therefore, Claim 42 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 43, dependent from Claim 41, Kang further teaches wherein the UE switches to a four-step common random access procedure based at least in part on the slice-based random access procedure type being a four-step slice-based random access procedure (when both 2-step and 4-step RA procedure type are configured as explained in Regarding Claim 38, supra, then the msgA-RSRP-Threshold parameter, present in rach-ConfigCommon and rach-ConfigCommonSlice1 indicates selection threshold between 2-step RA type and 4-step RA type in the UL BWP – See 3GPP TS 38.331:553 and 3GPP TS 38.321:16, therefore, the UE attempt to perform the slice-based random access procedure to “determine through which uplink of NUL or SUL should perform a system access procedure [to the slice of interest] based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement value” – See [¶0123] may trigger 4-step procedure because the measured RSRP value is below the threshold for a 2-step RA procedure, and if preambleTransMax expires, switch to “a system access procedure using general system access configuration information in the uplink selected based [also] on an RSRP measurement value” – See [¶0124] which would be the same value for the same uplink BWP, hence still a 4-step RA type would be used based at least in part on the slice-based random access procedure type being a four-step slice-based random access procedure).
Therefore, Claim 43 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 44, dependent from Claim 38, wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication of a second random access procedure threshold associated with a second slice-based random access procedure type (the ra-ResponseWindow parameter of a 4-step RA procedure which is configured through the rach-ConfigGeneric IE of the RACH-ConfigCommon structure shown in Table 2; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:558 for definitions)
the slice-based random access procedure type being a first slice-based random access procedure type (e.g., a 2-step RA procedure configured for access to the slice/service) different from the second slice-based random access procedure type (e.g., a 4-step RA type also configured for access to slice/service).
Therefore, Claim 44 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 45, dependent from Claim 44, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
attempt to perform random access with the physical network using the first slice-based random access procedure type until satisfaction of the first random access procedure threshold (“the case that the terminal transmits an RACH . . . first message of step 2 random access,” i.e., MsgA, “using system access configuration information on a slice/service of interest,” e.g. slice 1 configured with rach-ConfigCommonTwoStepRASlice1 and the measured RSRP on the UL BWP greater than the configured msgA-RSRP-Threshold configured for the slice, “the terminal may determine to receive a response message to the RACH first message of step 2 random access,” i.e., MsgB, “in the initial BWP, and stand by in the initial BWP so as to receive the response message” – See [¶0145]).
Kang also teaches switch to use of a four-step common random access procedure type for random access based at least in part on satisfaction of the second random access procedure threshold without successful random access using the second slice-based random access procedure type (“If it is determined that both the NUL and the SUL do not provide system access configuration information on a slice/service of interest,” e.g., because neither 2-step nor 4-step procedures with RACH-ConfigCommonSlice1 parameters succeeded on either the NUL or SUL BWP, “the terminal may determine to perform a system access procedure using general system access configuration information in the uplink selected based on an RSRP measurement value” – See [¶0124], i.e., using the RACH-ConfigCommon RA procedure configuration of the NUL, because “[g]eneral system access configuration information should be configured in an uplink corresponding to a NUL” – See [¶0118], whereby the RSRP measured value compared with msgA-RSRP-Threshold parameter of RACH-ConfigCommon of the NUL BWP indicates 4-step RA procedure, in case both 2-step and 4-step RA are configured for the general system through RACH-ConfigCommon and other RACH related IEs)
Kang does not disclose the specific procedure of a 2-step RA fall back to a 4-step RA, i.e., wherein the first slice-based random access procedure type is a two-step slice-based random access procedure type and the second slice-based random access procedure type is a four-step slice-based random access procedure type.
However, Li teaches two types of slice-based random access procedure, e.g., a 2-step RA and a 4-step RA – See [¶0190] (“for 2-step RACH and/or 4-step RACH, a network node 104 may configure different random-access preamble configurations (e.g., PRACH occasions, preamble index, or preamble format) for different UE/service groups that are associated to different priorities, different service types, or/and different network slice IDs. In some aspects, a UE 102 may select which configuration to use for the random-access preamble transmission based on the associated group of its access request”). Furthermore, 3GPP TS 38.321, referenced by Li, teaches in § 5.1, RA parameters initialization and 2-step to 4-step RA procedure fallback as follows:
When the performing random access with the physical network using the first slice-based random access procedure type 2-step RA, if for a msgB-ResponseWindow time, for preambleTransMax +1 times, no MsgB is properly decoded the RA procedure is unsuccessful – See §5.1.4a, 3GPP TS 38.321:33;
Then the UE may switch to use of the second slice-based random access procedure type for random access based at least in part on satisfaction of the first random access procedure threshold without successful random access using the first slice-based random access procedure type (if the 2-step RA procedure type above is unsuccessful based on threshold “msgB-ResponseWindow” multiplied by “preambleTransMax +1” then “if msgA-TransMax is applied (see clause 5.1.1a) and PREAMBLE_TRANSMISSION_COUNTER = msgA-TransMax + 1: set the RA_TYPE to 4-stepRA” – See id., i.e., switch to a 4-step RA procedure type); and
Attempt to perform random access with the physical network using the second slice-based random access procedure type until satisfaction of the second random access procedure threshold (“perform the Random Access Resource selection procedure as specified in clause 5.1.2” – See id., i.e., a 4-step RA procedure; and “if ra-ResponseWindow configured in RACH-ConfigCommon expires” for “preambleTransMax + 1” times, “consider the Random Access procedure unsuccessfully completed” – See §5.1.4, 3GPP TS 38.321:30);
wherein the first slice-based random access procedure type is a two-step slice-based random access procedure type and the second slice-based random access procedure type is a four-step slice-based random access procedure type, e.g., because the both 2-step and 4-step RA procedures have been configured for a cell/network offering the service/slice – See 3GPP TS 38.331:551-554 (when “RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA is used to specify cell specific 2-step random-access type parameters”, and 2Step4Step is present indicating that “both 2-step random access type and 4-step random access type are configured in the BWP, otherwise the field is not present”).
Therefore, Claim 45 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 46, dependent from Claim 38, wherein the indication of a first random access procedure threshold associated with the first slice-based random access procedure type may be a timer threshold, e.g., the combination of msgB-ResponseWindow and msgA-TransMax configured for a 2-step RA procedure type, Kang further teaches the instructions to receive the random access configuration are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication of a second random access procedure threshold associated with a second slice-based random access procedure type (e.g., the ra-ResponseWindow and preambleTransMax parameters of a 4-step RA procedure which is configured through the rach-ConfigGeneric IE of the RACH-ConfigCommon structure shown in Table 2) and
a third random access procedure threshold associated with a two-step common random access procedure type (a timer threshold combination of msgB-ResponseWindow and msgA-TransMax configured for a 2-step RA procedure type and received through rach-ConfigCommon of the initial UL BWP)
the slice-based random access procedure type being a first slice-based random access procedure type different from the second slice-based random access procedure type (e.g., the first slice-based random access procedure type is 2-step RA, and the second is 4-step RA, both configured to the slice/service, as explained in Regarding Claim 38, supra).
Therefore, Claim 46 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 47, dependent from Claim 46, the claim language merely repeats the limitations in Claim 45 disclosing a 2-step RA procedure fallback to a 4-step RA procedure for accessing, e.g., the slice/service1 configured for access through both 2-step and 4-step RA procedure types. This fallback procedure is described in 3GPP TS 38.321, referenced by Li, as explained in Regarding 45, supra, using the same logic and threshold parameters (RA wait window and number of attempts so send a preamble configured for 2-step RA and 4-step RA, measured RSRP compared with the configured threshold for 2-step RA vs. 4-step RA), as explained in Regarding Claims 45 and 46, supra, followed by an attempt to perform random access with the physical network using a common random access procedure type, as taught by Kang (“the terminal may determine to perform a system access procedure using general system access configuration information in the uplink selected based on an RSRP measurement value” – See [¶0124]), whereby the general system access configuration has configured the NUL BWP with both 2-step and 4-step access procedures, through similar RACH-Config configurations as used for slice/service1, including a 2-step RA procedure fallback to a 4-step RA procedure, and the first attempted common random access procedure is a 2-step RA procedure type because the measured RSRP is above the threshold for attempting a 2-step RA procedure, indicated by the msgA-RSRP-Threshold parameter.
Therefore, Claim 47 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 48, dependent from Claim 38, based on Kang teaching of various RACH-Config random access configuration at general system and/or slice level, through RACH-ConfigCommon and/or RACH-ConfigDedicated information elements as shown in Figs. 6A and 6B and Table 2, and further described in 3GPP TS 38.331 as RRC Information Elements, a set of parameters known in the art can be used as thresholds in the logic of a 2-step or 4-step RA procedure or a combination thereof. Therefore, when the slice-based random access procedure type configured to the UE to access, e.g., slice/service1, is a four-step slice-based random access procedure type, the ra-ResponseWindow and/or preambleTransMax determines, upon expiration, the unsuccessful RA attempt, as further explained in § 5.1.4, 3GPP TS 38.321:30. Kang further teaches wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are executable by the processor to cause the UE apparatus to:
receive an indication of a second random access procedure threshold associated with a two-step common random access procedure type (e.g., when the access to RACH resources on the UL BWP is configured for both 2-step and 4-step RA access, the 2-step RA configuration may be sent to the UE in a RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA information element with the combination of parameters msgB-ResponseWindow and preambleTransMax as a threshold for RA failure, in case only 2-step RA is configured for access, or parameter msgA-TransMax as a threshold for failover to 4-step RA procedure, when both 2-step RA and 4-step RA procedure types are configured and available to the UE to access the UL BWP, as further detailed in 3GPP TS 38.321 and explained, supra).
Therefore, Claim 48 is obvious over Kang in view of 3GPP TS 38.321.
Regarding Claim 49, dependent from Claim 48, the claim language merely discloses attempt and finally failure of a 4-step RA procedure performed on a configured slice/service using an expiration threshold as first random access procedure threshold, as already explained, supra, followed by the two-step common random access procedure type (“access procedure using general system access configuration information in the uplink selected based on an RSRP measurement value,” whereby the measured RSRP is above a threshold for attempting a 2-step RA procedure, as already explained, e.g., in Regarding Claim 47, supra) followed by a fallback to a 4-step common RA procedure because the second random access procedure threshold (combination of parameters msgB-ResponseWindow and preambleTransMax, as explained, e.g., in Regarding Claim 48, supra) was reached without a successful access through 2-step RA procedure type.
Therefore, Claim 49 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 50, dependent from Claim 30, Kang further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify a second network slice to be accessed by the UE via a second slice-based random access procedure (“FIG. 8 illustrates a scenario in which system access configuration information on a slice/service 1 is configured to be used in an NUL uplink and in which system access configuration information on a slice/service 2 is configured to be used in an SUL uplink” – see [¶0120] and Fig. 8, whereby “InitialULBWP of an UplinkConfigCommonSIB of the NUL may include general system access configuration information (rach-ConfigCommon) and system access configuration information (rach-ConfigCommonSlice) for each slice/service corresponding to a slice/service 1. The InitialULBWP of UplinkConfigCommonSIB of the SUL may include general system access configuration information (rach-ConfigCommon) and system access configuration information (rach-ConfigCommonSlice) for each slice/service corresponding to a slice/service 2” – See [¶0121])
wherein the slice-based random access procedure is a first slice-based random access procedure that is different from the second slice-based random access procedure (slice 1, configured through rach-ConfigCommonSlice1 and slice 2 through rach-ConfigCommonSlice2 on different UL BWPs, wherein the configured “RACH resource, at least one of a time, frequency, power ramping step, scaling factor backoff indicator (BI), or PRACH mask index, or a combination thereof may correspond to different resources . . . on different uplink carriers” – See [¶0094], and “may be configured in a manner that applies different prioritization parameters for each slice/service. The prioritization parameter may be applied to at least one of a power ramping step or a scaling factor BI or a combination thereof. Prioritization parameters may be configured, as illustrated in Table 4” – See [¶0097], e.g., slice 1 may be configured with ra-prioritization, as shown in Table 4, hence the UE must perform the first slice-based random access procedure for accessing slice1 with powerRampingStepHighPriority which is different from the normal second slice-based random access procedure to access slice 2, not configured with ra-prioritization), and
the network slice is a first network slice that is different from the second network slice (as shown in Fig. 8),
Therefore, Claim 50 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 51, dependent from Claim 50, while Kang teaches ra-prioritization configuration of access to a (first) network slice, as explained in Regarding Claim 50, supra, as well as using ra-PrioritizationForAI priority levels among different network slices, as discussed in Regarding Claim 30, supra, Kang does not teach wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication that the first network slice is associated with a first priority level and the second network slice is associated with a second priority level.
Li teaches the UE may receive an indication of “different random- access preamble configurations (e.g., PRACH occasions, preamble index, or preamble format) for different . . . service groups that are associated to different priorities” – See [¶0190], e.g., in “selection based on service priority aspects” a “first group may be associated with a first priority, the second group may be associated with a second priority, the second priority may be higher than the first priority, the first PRACH may be selected in step 1506 if the service has the first priority, and the second PRACH may be selected in step 1506 if the service has the second priority” – See [¶0200] and Fig. 15, wherein a first network slice may be associated with the first group and a second with a second group, respectively.
Therefore, Claim 51 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 55, dependent from Amended Claim 29, Kang further teaches the UE wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive at least a portion of the random access configuration in a system information block message (the “system access configuration information of the terminal may be transmitted while being included in a system broadcast message SIB1,” including “rach-ConfigCommon information” – See [¶0088] and Fig. 6A).
Therefore, Claim 55 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Claim 56, dependent from Amended Claim 29, Kang further teaches the UE wherein the instructions to receive the random access configuration are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive at least a portion of the random access configuration in a radio resource control message (“[t]he slice/service-based system access configuration information may be provided to a terminal in a radio resource control (RRC) connection state through dedicated RRC signaling, wherein the dedicated RRC signaling may provide slice specific RACH-Dedicated configuration information”– See [¶0105]). Furthermore, § 5.1.1 of 3GPP TS 38.321:16, referenced by Li, discloses a list of RA procedure parameters configured by RRC.
Therefore Claim 56 is obvious over Kang in view of Li.
Regarding Amended Claim 58, Kang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), the code comprising instructions executable by a processor (“The storage 320 stores data such as a basic program, an application program, and configuration information for an operation of the terminal 120. The storage 320 may be composed of a volatile memory, a non-volatile memory, or a combination of a volatile memory and a non-volatile memory. The storage 320 provides stored data according to the request of the controller 330” – See [¶0071] and Fig. 1, whereby “the controller 330 may control the terminal 120 to perform operations according to embodiments to be described” – See [¶0072]) to perform the method described in Amended Claim 1. Because Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Kang in view of Li, Amended Claim 58 is also obvious over Kang in view of Li.
In sum, Claims 1, 29-51 and 55-58, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang in view of Li (and 3GPP references included therein).
Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Li as applied to Claim 51 above, and further in view of Nuggehalli et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0300739 (hereinafter Nuggehalli).
Regarding Claim 52, dependent from Claim 51, while Kang in view of Li teaches the UE determining that the first network slice is of higher priority than the second network slice – See, e.g., Li:[¶0200] and Fig. 15, Kang in view of Li does not teach suspension of a second slice-based random access procedure.
Nuggehalli teaches method and apparatus whereby, just like in Kang in view of Li, “the base station may provide a number of dedicated, slice-specific RACH configurations to the UE (e.g., in a SIB or dedicated RRC message), such that the UE can identify and use the appropriate RACH configuration when requesting network support information for a given slice” – See [¶0005].
Nuggehalli further teaches a priority level of the network slice (“the UE 102 can transmit its list of desired slices (possibly with priority values) to a serving base station” – See [¶0041] and Fig. 1, whereby “the NAS controller 144 may inform the AS controller 142 of the priority level for [each] network slice” whereby “slice-specific priority level that was configured by the network (e.g., by base station 104A)” or “the priority level may be pre-defined (e.g., by the OEM)” – See [¶0048]) and
that the priority level is greater than a threshold priority level (“the slice support query unit 146” at the UE determines that “the overlap of desired slices and supported slices [must] satisfy particular criteria,” e.g., “all desired slices that have at least a threshold priority level” – See [¶0040] and Fig. 1).
Nuggehalli teaches the UE wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: determine that the first network slice is of higher priority than the second network slice (“the UE 102 determines 814 that data associated with a first network slice is ready for transmission, and determines 816 that data associated with a different, second network slice is also ready for transmission . . . at the same time” – See [¶0092] and Fig. 8, and “decides to attempt channel access for the data associated with the first network slice before attempting channel access for the data associated with the second network slice” based on “the first network slice (or its associated data) having a higher priority than the second” – See [¶0093]); and
suspend the second slice-based random access procedure based at least in part on the first network slice having higher priority than the second network slice (“the UE 102 is ready to transmit uplink data associated with two different slices at the same time (or at overlapping times, etc.), and in which the base station 104A supports (or may support) both of those slices. In these cases, the UE 102 may need to prioritize its attempts to gain channel access for the data associated with the different slices” – See [¶0085], i.e., the lower priority RA attempt is suspended until the first is completed or fails as a way to prioritize attempts to gain channel access for the data associated with the different slices; furthermore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would know that “[t]here is only one Random Access procedure ongoing at any point in time in a MAC entity” – See 3GPP TS.38.321:16).
Thus, Kang in view of Li and Nuggehalli each discloses a UE configured with network slice associated priority and dedicated RACH configuration information performing selection of the slice-based random access procedure type whereby the UE determines that the first network slice is of higher priority than the second network slice. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the step of suspending the second slice-based random access procedure based at least in part on the first network slice having higher priority than the second network slice as taught in Nuggehalli, could have been combined with the step of selecting a service-based random access procedure type based at least in part on the random access configuration and the priority of the service/slice to be accessed by the UE, as taught in Kang in view of Li, because both references provide for differential PRACH configuration for multiple services/slices types. 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 allowing faster access and data transmission to the UE for a higher priority slice.
Therefore, Claim 52 is obvious over Kang in view of Li, and further in view of Nuggehalli.
Regarding Claim 53, dependent from Claim 51, regarding the two slices configured for RA as taught by Kang in view of Li, Nuggehalli further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine that the second network slice is of higher priority than the first network slice (“if the UE 102 begins a first RACH procedure using a first RACH configuration (to attempt channel access for data associated with a first network slice), and the UE 102 determines during the first RACH procedure that second data associated with a second network slice is ready for transmission” whereby “the UE 102 determines that the second network slice and/or its associated data has a higher priority than the first network slice and/or its associated data” – See [¶0095]);
abort the first slice-based random access procedure based at least in part on the second network slice having higher priority than the first network slice; and perform the second slice-based random access procedure in place of the first slice- based random access procedure (“the UE 102 then terminates the first RACH procedure and instead starts a second RACH procedure to attempt channel access for the second network slice data” – See id.).
Therefore, Claim 53 is obvious over Kang in view of Li, and further in view of Nuggehalli.
Regarding Claim 54, dependent from Claim 50, the suspension of a RA procedure with a network slice is not disclosed in Kang in view of Li. However, Nuggehalli further teaches a scenario at the UE wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: suspend the second slice-based random access procedure based at least in part on the first slice-based random access procedure already being in progress (“the UE 102 determines 814 that data associated with a first network slice is ready for transmission, and determines 816 that data associated with a different, second network slice is also ready for transmission” whereby “event 816 may occur after the first RACH procedure has started (e.g., after event 862 but before event 882” – See [¶0092] and Fig. 8; in this case, the second slice-based random access procedure is still suspended, as further explained in [¶0093-94]).
Therefore, Claim 54 is obvious over Kang in view of Li, and further in view of Nuggehalli.
In sum, Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kang in view of Li and further in view of Nuggehalli.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seidel et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0092324 discloses method and apparatus for random access with slice specific RACH resource configuration;
Gao et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0029004 discloses technical details of network slices and network slice configuration including RACH configurations and procedures;
Li, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0353908 discloses method and apparatus for fined-grained control at a slice level performed based on access control information, backoff information, a timer, and other information related to the slice;
3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #112 Electronic, R2-2009423, Title: “RACH prioritisation for slices,” Source: Nokia, Nokia Shanghai Bell, November 2020;
3GPP TS 38.331 V16.3.1 (2021-01), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16),” published January 6, 2021;
3GPP TS 23.501 V16.7.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 16)”, published January 6, 2021;
3GPP TS 38.300 V16.4.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16),” published January 6, 2021;
3GPP TS 28.530 V17.0.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; Concepts, use cases and requirements (Release 17),” published December 2020
3GPP TS 28.531 V16.8.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; Provisioning; (Release 16),” published January 7, 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 recognize that Table 2 is an excerpt from the IE RACH-ConfigCommon, used to specify the cell specific random-access parameters – See 3GPP TS 38.331:549-551 V16.3.1 (2021-01), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16),” published January 6, 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331); see also Li:[¶0016].
2 A person of ordinary skills in the art would know that, e.g., 3GPP TS 28.530:5 V17.0.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; Concepts, use cases and requirements (Release 17),” published December 2020 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 28.530), describes “[n]etwork slicing” as “a paradigm where logical networks/partitions are created, with appropriate isolation, resources and optimized topology to serve a purpose or service category (e.g. use case/traffic category, or for MNO internal reasons) or customers (logical system created ‘on demand’. It further defines “network slice” as “a logical network that provides specific network capabilities and network characteristics, supporting various service properties for network slice customers” – See § 3.1, 3GPP TS 28.530:6, describes the relationship between a Network Slice and Network Functions to deliver communication services – See, e.g., Figure 4.1.6.1, § 4.1.6, 3GPP TS 28.530:11; see, generally, 3GPP TS 23.501 V16.7.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects;
System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 16),” published December 2020 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 23.501).
3 A person of ordinary skills in the art would recognize that Table 1 contains the SSTs which are standardized by 3GPP – See, e.g., Table 5.15.2.2-1, 3GPP TS 23.501:198 V16.7.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; System architecture for the 5G System (5GS); Stage 2 (Release 16)”, published January 6, 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 23.501). Furthermore, § 5.12.2.1 of 3GPP TS 23.501:196-198 describes a standalone NSSAI (S-NSSAI) as identifying a network slice, and being comprised of SST, and optionally a SD, whereby “[t]he NSSAI is a collection of S-NSSAIs. An NSSAI may be a Configured NSSAI, a Requested NSSAI or an Allowed NSSAI. There can be at most eight S-NSSAIs in Allowed and Requested NSSAIs sent in signalling messages between the UE and the Network. The Requested NSSAI signalled by the UE to the network allows the network to select the Serving AMF, Network Slice(s) and Network Slice instance(s) for this UE, as specified in clause 5.15.5,” and “[t]he details of how the RAN uses NSSAI information are described in TS 38.300,” referencing 3GPP TS 38.300 V16.4.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16),” published January 6, 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.300); see also 3GPP TS 38.331:629-630 (defining the S-NSSAI IE as “identifying a Network Slice end to end and comprises a slice/service type and a slice differentiator”).
4 The IE RACH-ConfigDedicated is used to specify the dedicated random access parameters, including whether contention-free Random Access Resources for 2-step RA (cfra-TwoStep parameter) and/or 4-step RA type are configured for the BWP selected for Random Access procedure, and when 2-step and 4-step RA type are configured, whether switching to 4-step type RA is supported (msgA-TransMax parameter)– See 3GPP TS 38.331:557.
5 RACH prioritization for slices using Access Identity and was also discussed in the 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #112 Electronic, November 2020, e.g., R2-2009199 Intel contribution provided in the IDS of 05/15/2023, discusses the same RA prioritization as proposed in Kang, supra, and further using operator defined access categories to provide RA prioritization for slice in MO access case, as shown in Table 8 and further discussed in Kang. Furthermore, 3GPP TS 38.321 V16.3.0 (2020-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification (Release 16),” published January 7, 2021 (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.321) was amended to provide prioritized RACH procedure for UEs configured for Multimedia Priority Service (MPS) and/or Mission Critical Service (MCS) (access identity 1 and 2) using also ra-Prioritization (containing the fields powerRampingStepHighPriority and scalingFactorBI) further described in § 5.1.1, 3GPP 38.321:21-22, in addition to the case when ra-Prioritization is configured in the rach-ConfigDedicated, as disclosed in Kang for slice/service prioritization parameters. The purpose of using ra-Prioritization is “to provide lower latency and higher probability of success to the RACH procedure particularly during times of network overload when otherwise would not be possible with regular RACH parameters” – See 3GPP TSG-RAN2 Meeting #109 Electronic, R2- 2002103 (38.321, CR 0675), March 2020 (hereinafter 3GPP R2- 2002103).
6 RACH prioritization for slices using Access Identity and was also discussed in the 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #112 Electronic, November 2020, e.g., R2-2009199 Intel contribution provided in the IDS of 05/15/2023, discusses the same RA prioritization as proposed in Kang, supra, and further using operator defined access categories to provide RA prioritization for slice in MO access case, as shown in Table 8 and further discussed in Kang. Furthermore, 3GPP TS 38.321 was amended to provide prioritized RACH procedure for UEs configured for Multimedia Priority Service (MPS) and/or Mission Critical Service (MCS) (access identity 1 and 2) using also ra-Prioritization (containing the fields powerRampingStepHighPriority and scalingFactorBI) further described in § 5.1.1, 3GPP 38.321:21-22, in addition to the case when ra-Prioritization is configured in the rach-ConfigDedicated, as disclosed in Kang for slice/service prioritization parameters. The purpose of using ra-Prioritization is “to provide lower latency and higher probability of success to the RACH procedure particularly during times of network overload when otherwise would not be possible with regular RACH parameters” – See 3GPP TSG-RAN2 Meeting #109 Electronic, R2- 2002103 (38.321, CR 0675), March 2020 (hereinafter 3GPP R2- 2002103).
7 In case that both 2-step and 4-step are configured for the same UL BWP, msgA-RSRP-Threshold field in RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA determines whether UE selects 2-step or 4-step, hence the threshold in Kang should be higher than this threshold – See 3GPP TS 38.331:553; see also § 5.1.1 of 3GPP TS 38.321:16.
8 preambleTransMax parameter is defined as “Max number of RA preamble transmission performed before declaring a failure (see TS 38.321 [3], clauses 5.1.4, 5.1.5”– See 3GPP TS 38.331:559
9 msgA-TransMax parameter is defined as “Max number of MsgA preamble transmissions performed before switching to 4-step type random access (see TS 38.321 [3], clauses 5.1.1). This field is only applicable when 2-step and 4-step RA type are configured and switching to 4-step type RA is supported. If the field is absent in RACH-ConfigDedidated, switching from 2-step RA type to 4-step RA type is not allowed” – See 3GPP TS 38.331:557.
Prosecution Insights