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
This Action is in response to applicant’s claim amendments and arguments. Claims 1, 9-16, 18, 25, 27-32, and 34 are now currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9-16, 18, 25, 27-32, and 34 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120547 A1, hereinafter Han).
Consider claim 1. Han discloses information transmission method, applied to a network device, comprising:
sending network slice-related information to a terminal (fig. 3, paragraphs 90, 127, 128, read as sending cell reselection information, which includes network slices supported by the terminal device), the network slice-related information comprising at least one of:
second information, the second information representing a correspondence between the network slice and a frequency (paragraph 128, read as the cell reselection information includes a carrier frequency that can support the network slice supported by the terminal device and that has a highest priority as the target carrier frequency); or
fourth information, the fourth information representing a correspondence between the network slice and a cell access parameter, wherein the network slice-related information is used to configure, for the terminal, a frequency priority or cell reselection parameter (optional since Han teaches at least “second information”),
wherein in the second information and the fourth information, an identifier of the network slice is processed by one of: the identifier of the network slice being truncated; or the identifier of the network slice being mapped (paragraph 128, read as when performing cell reselection, the terminal device selects, based on the network slice set identifier corresponding to each carrier frequency, a mapping relationship between a network slice identifier and a network slice set identifier, and a priority of each carrier frequency, a carrier frequency that can support the network slice supported by the terminal device and that has a highest priority as the target carrier frequency, to select a to-be-camped cell on the target carrier frequency).
Consider claim 9. Han discloses an information transmission method, applied to a terminal, comprising:
receiving network slice-related information sent by a network side (fig. 3, paragraphs 90, 127, 128, read as sending cell reselection information that the terminal device receives, which includes network slices supported by the terminal device), the network slice-related information comprising at least one of:
second information, the second information representing a correspondence between the network slice and a frequency (paragraph 128, read as the cell reselection information includes a carrier frequency that can support the network slice supported by the terminal device and that has a highest priority as the target carrier frequency); or
fourth information, the fourth information representing a correspondence between the network slice and a cell access parameter, wherein the network slice-related information is used to configure, for the terminal, a frequency priority or cell reselection parameter (optional since Han teaches at least “second information”),
wherein in the second information and the fourth information, an identifier of the network slice is processed by one of:
the identifier of the network slice being truncated; or
the identifier of the network slice being mapped (paragraph 128, read as when performing cell reselection, the terminal device selects, based on the network slice set identifier corresponding to each carrier frequency, a mapping relationship between a network slice identifier and a network slice set identifier, and a priority of each carrier frequency, a carrier frequency that can support the network slice supported by the terminal device and that has a highest priority as the target carrier frequency, to select a to-be-camped cell on the target carrier frequency).
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 9. Han discloses wherein the network slice-related information is received in a broadcast manner (paragraph 92).
Consider claim 25. Han discloses a terminal (fig. 5), comprising:
a processor and a memory configured to store a computer program executable on a processor (fig. 5, paragraphs 167, 174, read as a processor 501, a memory 502, where the processor 501 is configured to invoke a program and data that are stored in the memory 502),
wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to perform operations of (paragraph 174, to perform the following operations):
receiving network slice-related information sent by a network side (fig. 3, paragraphs 90, 127, 128, read as the radio access network device sends cell reselection information that the terminal device receives, which includes network slices supported by the terminal device), the network slice-related information comprising at least one of:
second information, the second information representing a correspondence between the network slice and a frequency (paragraph 128, read as the cell reselection information includes a carrier frequency that can support the network slice supported by the terminal device and that has a highest priority as the target carrier frequency); or
fourth information, the fourth information representing a correspondence between the network slice and a cell access parameter, wherein the network slice-related information is used to configure, for the terminal, a frequency priority or cell reselection parameter (optional since Han teaches at least “second information”),
wherein in the second information and the fourth information, an identifier of the network slice is processed by one of:
the identifier of the network slice being truncated; or
the identifier of the network slice being mapped (paragraph 128, read as when performing cell reselection, the terminal device selects, based on the network slice set identifier corresponding to each carrier frequency, a mapping relationship between a network slice identifier and a network slice set identifier, and a priority of each carrier frequency, a carrier frequency that can support the network slice supported by the terminal device and that has a highest priority as the target carrier frequency, to select a to-be-camped cell on the target carrier frequency).
Consider claim 27 and as applied to claim 25. Han discloses wherein the network slice-related information is received in a broadcast manner (paragraph 92).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 11-13 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120547 A1, hereinafter Han) and as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0297853 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 10. Han discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach performing, on the network slice-related information, one of: decrypting the encrypted identifier of the network slice by using the key, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; performing a truncation recovery process on the truncated identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; or mapping the mapped identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice.
However, Lee teaches performing, on the network slice-related information, one of: decrypting the encrypted identifier of the network slice by using the key, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; performing a truncation recovery process on the truncated identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; or mapping the mapped identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice (paragraph 176).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Han in order to add an extra layer of security for communication of broadcast information related to cell access.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 11. Han and Lee disclose when encrypted identifier of the network slice is decrypted by using the key, receiving the key sent by the network side in a unicast manner (Lee; paragraphs 176, 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Han in order to add an extra layer of security for communication of broadcast information related to cell access.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 11. Han and Lee disclose receiving encrypted fifth information sent by the network side, the fifth information comprising dedicated information sent by the network side to the terminal; and decrypting the encrypted fifth information by using the key, to obtain the fifth information (Lee; paragraphs 201, 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Han in order to add an extra layer of security for communication of broadcast information related to cell access.
Consider claim 28 and as applied to claim 27. Han discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach performing, on the network slice-related information, one of: decrypting the encrypted identifier of the network slice by using the key, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; performing a truncation recovery process on the truncated identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; or mapping the mapped identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice.
However, Lee teaches performing, on the network slice-related information, one of: decrypting the encrypted identifier of the network slice by using the key, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; performing a truncation recovery process on the truncated identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice; or mapping the mapped identifier of the network slice, to obtain the identifier of the network slice (paragraph 176).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Han in order to add an extra layer of security for communication of broadcast information related to cell access.
Consider claim 29 and as applied to claim 28. Han and Lee disclose when encrypted identifier of the network slice is decrypted by using the key, receiving the key sent by the network side in a unicast manner (Lee; paragraphs 176, 201).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Han in order to add an extra layer of security for communication of broadcast information related to cell access.
Consider claim 30 and as applied to claim 28. Han and Lee disclose receiving encrypted fifth information sent by the network side, the fifth information comprising dedicated information sent by the network side to the terminal; and decrypting the encrypted fifth information by using the key, to obtain the fifth information (Lee; paragraphs 201, 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into the invention of Han in order to add an extra layer of security for communication of broadcast information related to cell access.
Claims 14 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120547 A1, hereinafter Han) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0297853 A1, hereinafter Lee) and as applied to claims 11 and 28 above and further in view of Falk (WO 2019/206796 A1).
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 11. Han and Lee disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach when the truncation recovery process is performed on the truncated identifier of the network slice to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving sixth information sent by the network side, the sixth information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is truncated.
However, Falk teaches when the truncation recovery process is performed on the truncated identifier of the network slice to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving sixth information sent by the network side, the sixth information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is truncated (page 9 lines 25-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Falk into the invention of Han and Lee in order to facilitate network slicing and improve the security of network slices.
Consider claim 31 and as applied to claim 28. Han and Lee disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach when the truncation recovery process is performed on the truncated identifier of the network slice to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving sixth information sent by the network side, the sixth information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is truncated, or when the mapped identifier of the network slice is mapped to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving seventh information sent by the network side, the seventh information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is mapped.
However, Falk teaches when the truncation recovery process is performed on the truncated identifier of the network slice to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving sixth information sent by the network side, the sixth information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is truncated, or when the mapped identifier of the network slice is mapped to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving seventh information sent by the network side, the seventh information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is mapped (page 9 lines 25-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Falk into the invention of Han and Lee in order to facilitate network slicing and improve the security of network slices.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120547 A1, hereinafter Han) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0297853 A1, hereinafter Lee) and as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Luo et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0394608 A1, hereinafter Luo).
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 11. Han and Lee disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach when the mapped identifier of the network slice is mapped to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving seventh information sent by the network side, the seventh information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is mapped.
However, Luo teaches when the mapped identifier of the network slice is mapped to obtain the identifier of the network slice, receiving seventh information sent by the network side, the seventh information indicating that the identifier of the network slice in the network slice-related information is mapped (paragraph 76).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Luo into the invention of Han and Lee in order to accurately adapt to a communication requirement of a terminal device.
Claims 16 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120547 A1, hereinafter Han) and as applied to claims 9 and 25 and further in view of Jiang (US PGPUB 2023/0051569 A1, hereinafter Jiang ‘569).
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 9. Han discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach when the network slice-related information comprises the second information: determining network slice information supported by a first frequency, by using the second information.
However, Jiang ‘569 teaches when the network slice-related information comprises the second information: determining network slice information supported by a first frequency, by using the second information (paragraph 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Jiang ‘569 into the invention of Han in order to provide the network slice required by the terminal, so that the communication quality of the terminal can meet expectations.
Consider claim 32 and as applied to claim 25. Han discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach when the network slice-related information comprises the second information, determining network slice information supported by a first frequency, by using the second information.
However, Jiang ‘569 teaches when the network slice-related information comprises the second information, determining network slice information supported by a first frequency, by using the second information (paragraph 113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Jiang ‘569 into the invention of Han in order to provide the network slice required by the terminal, so that the communication quality of the terminal can meet expectations.
Claims 18 and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0120547 A1, hereinafter Han) and as applied to claims 9 and 25 above and further in view of Hong (US PGPUB 2022/0014938 A1).
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 9. Han discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach when the network slice-related information comprises the fourth information, determining cell access parameters of a network slice supported by the terminal, by using the fourth information, wherein the method further comprises: reporting eighth information to the network side, the eighth information representing whether the terminal supports capability of processing the network slice-related information.
However, Hong teaches when the network slice-related information comprises the fourth information, determining cell access parameters of a network slice supported by the terminal, by using the fourth information, wherein the method further comprises: reporting eighth information to the network side, the eighth information representing whether the terminal supports capability of processing the network slice-related information (paragraph 161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hong into the invention of Han in order to provide capability information such that utilization of the network resources and providing optimal support for different services used by different user groups is improved.
Consider claim 34 and as applied to claim 25. Han discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach when the network slice-related information comprises the fourth information, determining cell access parameters of a network slice supported by the terminal, by using the fourth information, wherein the operations further comprises: reporting eighth information to the network side, the eighth information representing whether the terminal supports capability of processing the network slice-related information.
However, Hong teaches when the network slice-related information comprises the fourth information, determining cell access parameters of a network slice supported by the terminal, by using the fourth information, wherein the operations further comprises: reporting eighth information to the network side, the eighth information representing whether the terminal supports capability of processing the network slice-related information (paragraph 161).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Hong into the invention of Han in order to provide capability information such that utilization of the network resources and providing optimal support for different services used by different user groups is improved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M Brandt whose telephone number is (571) 270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Addy can be reached on (571) 272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights