DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action addressing U.S. Application No. 18/262,332.
On August 5, 2025 a Non-Final Office Action (“NFOA”) was mailed in which among other findings, claims 17-23 were rejected under § 112(b) for being indefinite; and claims 1-30 were rejected under § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated “Nuggehalli”.
On October 23, 2025, the Applicant filed their response to the NFOA.
On January 28, 2026, a Final Office action was mailed in which claims 1,4,5,7-9,12,13,15-17,20,21,23,24,26-28,30,31, and 33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nuggehalli; and claims 32 and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuggehalli in view of Bulakci.
The Applicant filed an Amendment After Final on March 13, 2026 seeking to amend at the independent claims, however that Amendment was denied entry.
An Advisory Action was mailed on March 20, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 13, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments are directed toward the newly added limitations to the independent claims. The Applicant’s arguments are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection below. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
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 1,4,5,7-9,12,13,15-17,20,21,23,24,26-28,30,31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/031806 to Nuggehalli et al. which claims priority to US 63/031,061 filed August 5, 2020 in view of Lohr et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0064817 hereinafter “Lohr” which claims priority to US 63/137,614).
Referring to claim 1, Nuggehalli teaches a user equipment (UE) in a (see item 102 in figure 1), comprising:
one or more memories (see ¶ 31); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (see ¶ 31), wherein the one or more processors configured to cause the UE:
enter a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (see ¶¶ 5, 60, 66, and 73);
select an intended network slice from a plurality of network slices based on a respective slice priority of each of the network slices within a list activated network slices (see ¶ 48, 87, 90, and 93), wherein each of the plurality of network slices is associated with a respective activated protocol data unit (PDU) session, (see ¶ 38);
select at least one of a random access channel (RACH) resource or a RACH parameter based on the intended network slice (see ¶ 40); and
perform an RRC resume procedure with a radio access network (RAN) using the RACH resource or the RACH parameter to communicate data with the RAN via (see ¶ 47).
Nuggehalli fails to explicitly disclose the selected RACH resource is selected from a plurality of slice-specific RACH resource, each associated with a respective one of the plurality of network slices, or a RACH parameter from a plurality of slice-specific RACH parameters, each associated with a respective one of the plurality of network slices.
Lohr teaches, in an analogous system, the above, limitations (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Nuggehalli with the above teachings of Seidel. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention would have been motivated to make such modification in order to facilitate prioritized access of the limited RACH resources as suggested by Lohr (see ¶¶ 39-40).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Nuggehalli and Lohr renders obvious the UE of claim 1 (as shown above), and Nuggehalli further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive the respective slice priority of each of the plurality of network slices via a radio resource control (RRC) message or a non-access stratum (NAS) message (see ¶ 48, “configured by the network”).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Nuggehalli and Lohr renders obvious the UE of claim 1 (as shown above), and Nuggehalli further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: perform a random access procedure using the RACH resource or the RACH parameter; and transmit an RRC resume request during the random access procedure (see ¶ 47).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Nuggehalli and Lohr renders obvious the UE of claim 1 (as shown above), and Nuggehalli further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive a paging message from the RAN indicating the data is present at the RAN for transmission to the UE (see ¶ 23).
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Nuggehalli and LOhr renders obvious the UE of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: identify the data in an uplink buffer of the UE (see ¶ 96).
Referring to claims 9,12,13,15, and 16, the Examiner finds these claims are method that recite the same limitations recited as performed by the corresponding apparatus claims 1,4,5,7, and 8 above. Claims 9,12,13,15, and 16 are rejected on the same basis and rationale as claims 1,4,5,7, and 8.
Referring to claims 17,20,21, and 23, the Examiner finds these claims are apparatus claims that recite the same limitations recited as performed by the corresponding apparatus claims 1,4,5,7, and 8above. Claims 17-23 are rejected on the same basis and rationale as claims 1,4,5,7, and 8.
Referring to claims 24,26,27,28 and 30, the Examiner finds these claims are computer-readable medium claims that recite the same limitations recited as performed by the corresponding method claims 9,12,13,15, and 16above. Claims 24,26,27,28 and 30 are rejected on the same basis and rationale as claims 9,12,13,15, and 16.
Referring to claims 31 and 33, the combination of Nuggehalli and Lohr renders obvious the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 33 (as shown above), and Nuggehalli further teaches, wherein the intended slice comprises a highest priority among the plurality of network slices (see ¶¶ 87,90, and 93).
Claim(s) 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuggehalli in view Lohr as applied to claims 1 and 9 applied above and further in view of Bulakci et al. (WO 2018/153432).
Referring to claims 32 and 34, the combination of Nuggehalli and Lohr renders obvious the UE and method of claims 1 and 9 as shown above. The combination fails to teach the intended network slice comprises a lowest priority among the plurality of network slices, however Bulakci teaches the above limitation in an analogous system (see line 34 of page 19 to line 12 of page 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the combination of Nuggehalli and Lohr with the above teachings of Bulakci. Such a modification would be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. As shown above Nuggehalli/Lohr and Bulakci disclose each of the claim limitations, and one of ordinary skill could have combined their teachings by merely changing the selection criteria as shown by Bulakci and the result of selecting the lowest priority slice would be predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERON J SORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. 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.
Signed:
/ERON J SORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights