DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The newly added claim limitations to independent claims 1 and 6 were not described within the instant disclosure. The applicants have listed paragraphs from the instant specification but these paragraphs do not clearly describe the newly added limitations. The original application did not have paragraph numbering. It appears the cited paragraphs, from the applicants, are from the Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0406852. If this assumption is incorrect, please add citations, from the original specification, of pages and line numbering.
As an example, a newly added limitation discloses “wherein access to the closed second communication network from the first communication network via the plurality of base stations is prohibited”. The instant specification is silent on the “prohibited” or equivalence thereto. It appears the instant specification deals with the user terminal, not the base station, could be denied access to a network slice [PGPUB; figure 4; paragraph 0050]. Also, the instant specification does not clearly show a “closed second communication network from the first communication network”.
As an example, a newly added limitation discloses “registering at least one of the plurality of base stations as a registered base station and lifting a prohibition of access to the closed second communication network from the registered base station”. The instant specification is silent on the “registering” of a base station and “lifting a prohibition of access” or equivalence thereto. It appears the instant specification registers the network slice to the base station [PGPUB; fig 5; para 0091 and 0099].
As an example, a newly added limitation discloses “starting to accept access requests for the closed second communication network via the registered base station”. The instant specification is silent on the “starting to accept access” or equivalence thereto.
The response to the final office action, filed 02/09/2026, lists paragraphs, in order to show support of the newly amended claim limitations. These citations do not clearly support the new limitations within the independent. It appears these citations do not support some of the amendments in the dependent claims, as well. The instant specification does not describe the newly added amendments within independent claims 1 and 6. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li [PGPUB 2023/0026697] in view of Ryu et al. (“Ryu”) [PGPUB 2023/0109272].
Regarding claim 1, the Li reference discloses a communication system, comprising: one or more processors; and a first communication network including a plurality of base stations [Li; figure 1b and 2b; para 0053-0054 and 0087-0088],
a closed second communication network formed by a predetermined network slice, wherein access to the closed second communication network from the first communication network via the plurality of base stations is prohibited [ie. unable (“prohibited”) to access network slice without subscription or support; Li; para 0004, 0069, 0077-0078, 0094, and 0101],
the communication system causing at least one of the one or more processors to execute: registering at least one of the plurality of base stations as a registered base station and lifting a prohibition of access to the closed second communication network from the registered base station [ie. preconfigure access network device (“registered base station”) for access and support (“lifting a prohibition”) of a network slice; Li; para 0141-0145];
establishing a first communication path between the base station and the closed second communication network, and starting to accept access requests for the closed second communication network via the base station [ie. access network device (“base station”) supports (“establishing path”) the network slice and accepts requests from a user terminal; Li; para 0078 and 0097-0099];
receiving an access request for the closed second communication network via the first communication path [Li; para 0097-0099];
confirming whether a first communication terminal that transmitted the access request has access permission for the predetermined network slice [ie. terminal is a subscriber; Li; para 0099 and 0121-0122];
in response to the first communication terminal having access permission for the predetermined network slice, authorizing, access of the first communication terminal to the predetermined network slice of the closed second communication network [Li; para 0060 and 0121-0122];
after the access of the first communication terminal is authorized, setting a second communication path between the first communication terminal and a service system connected to the predetermined network slice [ie. communication path for terminal to a network slice for a service; Li; para 0054-0055 and 0075]; and
The Li reference discloses deleting NSSAI if not supported by access network device [Li; para 0154-0155] but does not specifically disclose after communication between the first communication terminal and the service system is finished, deleting the second communication path to prevent re-access of the first communication terminal to the service system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Ryu reference discloses after communication between the first communication terminal and the service system is finished, deleting the second communication path to prevent re-access of the first communication terminal to the service system [ie. “to prevent re-access” is an intended use of deleting a path and is not significance to the structure or process or making the claimed invention; Ryu; fig 20 and 24; para 0300 and 0308; claim 8]. The Li and Ryu references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage terminal requests to network slices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of deleting a path to a network slice, taught by Ryu, into the system, taught by Li. The motivation for doing so would have been to dynamically change required services from the wireless device [Ryu; para 0300].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses a part of the one or more processors is arranged at a site at which the service system is arranged, and wherein the communication system causes at least one of the part of the one or more processors arranged at the site to relay communication between the first communication terminal and the service system [Li; fig 3a and 6; para 0036-0038 and 0218] [Ryu; fig 3; para 0327].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses a site radio device arranged at the site and connectable to the predetermined network slice, wherein, even if access to the second communication network from the first communication network is prohibited, in response to receiving an access from the first communication terminal via the site radio device, communication between the first communication terminal and the service system is relayed by the site radio device [Li; fig 2a; para 0141-0145].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses even if access to the closed second communication network from the first communication network is prohibited, in response to receiving an access request to a third network, that is different from the second network, from the first communication terminal via the registered base station in the first communication network, a communication path between the third network and the first communication terminal is set [Li; fig 2b and 7; para 0101-0103].
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 6 performs the similar steps as the apparatus of claim 1. The combination of Li-Ryu teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as referenced above. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claim 1, by the teachings of Li-Ryu.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Ryu as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Guduru et al. (“Guduru”) [USPAT 11,855,856].
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses registering the at least one of the plurality of base stations includes registering the at least one of the plurality of base stations based on a relationship between a cell provided by access network device and a cell to which the first communication terminal is connected [Li; fig 2a and 3b; para 0074 and 0077-0078] [Ryu; para 0230]. The combination of Li-Ryu discloses access network device but does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of base stations includes a Radio Unit (RU).
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Guduru reference discloses each of the plurality of base stations includes a Radio Unit (RU) [Guduru; fig 1; column 3, line 27-48]. The Li-Ryu and Guduru references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage terminal requests to network slices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of radio unit with a base station, taught by Guduru, into the system, taught by Li-Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to support distribution arrangements of the system [Guduru; col 3, lines 30-35].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses registering the at least one of the plurality of base stations is performed based on a relationship that is configured to indicate that a distance between a cell provided by the access network device and a cell to which the first communication terminal is connected is within a predetermined range [Li; fig 2a and 3b; para 0072-0074 and 0077-0078] [Ryu; para 0230]. The combination of Li-Ryu discloses access network device but does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of base stations includes a Radio Unit (RU).
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Guduru reference discloses each of the plurality of base stations includes a Radio Unit (RU) [Guduru; fig 1; column 3, line 27-48]. The Li-Ryu and Guduru references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage terminal requests to network slices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of radio unit with a base station, taught by Guduru, into the system, taught by Li-Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to support distribution arrangements of the system [Guduru; col 3, lines 30-35].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses registering the at least one of the plurality of base stations is performed based on a relationship that is configured to indicate that a cell provided by the RU and a cell to which the first communication terminal is connected are the same cell or are adjacent to each other [Li; fig 2a and 3b; para 0072-0074 and 0077-0078] [Ryu; para 0230]. The combination of Li-Ryu discloses access network device but does not specifically disclose each of the plurality of base stations includes a Radio Unit (RU).
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Guduru reference discloses each of the plurality of base stations includes a Radio Unit (RU) [Guduru; fig 1; column 3, line 27-48]. The Li-Ryu and Guduru references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage terminal requests to network slices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of radio unit with a base station, taught by Guduru, into the system, taught by Li-Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to support distribution arrangements of the system [Guduru; col 3, lines 30-35].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Li-Ryu further discloses network slices of a communication network can be restricted based on location [Li; para 0112 and 0124] but does not specifically disclose a service system is a containerized system that is a part of the closed second communication network and containerized from a rest of the closed second communication network, and is configured to implement a network service.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Guduru reference discloses a service system is a containerized system that is a part of the closed second communication network and containerized from a rest of the closed second communication network, and is configured to implement a network service [Guduru; col 4, lines 57-66]. The Li-Ryu and Guduru references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area in being able to manage terminal requests to network slices. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of radio unit with a base station, taught by Guduru, into the system, taught by Li-Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to support distribution of slices [Guduru; col 3, lines 30-35].
Regarding claims 10-12 and 14, the method of claims 10-12 and 14 perform the similar steps as the apparatus of claims 7-9 and 13. The combination of Li-Ryu teaches the apparatus of claims 7-9 and 13, as referenced above. Therefore, claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 7-9 and 13, by the teachings of Li-Ryu-Guduru.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458