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 04/29/2026; the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to claims 4, 6, and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of claims 4, 6, and 7 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being allegedly obvious over US-20210258865-A1 to Park et al. (from hereon Park) in view of US-202200100176-A1 to Pateromichelakis et al. (from hereon Pateromichelakis) of Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, and 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to claims 2 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly obvious over Park in view of Pateromichelakis and even further in view of US 11457372 B2 to Byum (from hereon Byum) of claims 2 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to claims 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly obvious over Park in view of Pateromichelakis and even further in view of US-20220287051-A1 to Panchal (from hereon Panchal) of claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly obvious over Park in view of Pateromichelakis and even further in view of JP-7432916-B2 to Tachibana (from hereon Tachibana of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 04/29/2026, with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being allegedly obvious over Park in view of Pateromichelakis and even further in view of US-20210274375-A1 to Li (from hereon Li) of claim 7 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 1 and 16 discloses…Line 6 “and information regarding the total number of user equipment connected” without first defining the term “total number of user equipment connected”. Claims 12 and 17 discloses..Line 9, “the type being determined” it was interpreted as “the type of network slice”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the main reason for allowance of the claims under discussion is the inclusion of “information regarding a received signal quality of the node, and information regarding the total number of user equipments connected between the node and the communication device;j udging unit configured to judge a type of network slice supported by the communication device or another node that is directly connected to the communication device; determining unit configured to determine a type of network slice supported by the node, based on the first information, the information regarding the received signal quality of the node, and the information regarding the total number of user equipments connected between the node and the communication device; and informing unit configured to inform the node of the determined type of network slice, wherein in a case where the judging unit judges that a high-speed and large- capacity communication is supported by the communication device or the another node as the type of network slice, and the value indicating the received signal quality is greater than or equal to a first specified value and the total number of user equipments is less than or equal to a second specified value, the determining unit determines that the high-speed and large-capacity communication is supported by the node”, “judging unit configured to judge whether or not a network slice assigned according to the information received by the receiving unit is not maintainable, according to a change in a communication environment; and second transmitting unit configured to transmit, in a case where the judging unit judges that the network slice is not maintainable, information indicating that support of the network slice is not maintainable to the base station”, “receiving, from a node that relays communication between the communication device and a user equipment, first information regarding a path between the node and the communication device information regarding a received signal quality of the node, and information regarding the total number of user equipments connected between the node and the communication device; judging a type of network slice supported by the communication device or another node that is directly connected to the communication device; determining a type of network slice supported by the node, based on the first information, the information regarding the received signal quality of the node, and the information regarding the total number of user equipments connected between the node and the communication device; and informing the node of the determined type of network slice, wherein in a case where ahigh-speed and large-capacity communication is supported by the communication device or the another node as the type of network slice, and the value indicating the received signal quality is greater than or equal to a first specified value and the total number of user equipments is less than or equal to a second specified value, determining that the high-speed and large-capacity communication is supported by the node”, and “transmitting, to the base station, first information regarding a path between the communication device and the base station and second information regarding a status of the communication device; receiving information regarding a type of network slice supported by the node, the type being determined by the base station based on the first information and the second information; notifying the user equipment of information with which the communication device can be identified, together with the information regarding the type of network slice; judging whether or not a network slice assigned according to the information received by the receiving unit is not maintainable, according to a change in a communication environment; and transmitting, in a case where the network slice is judged not maintainable, information indicating that support of the network slice is not maintainable to the base station.” as the prior art of record in stand-alone form nor in combination read into the amended claims as supported by the specification. Furthermore, the nearest prior art such as US-20210345218-A1 to Tsuda, WO-2020080044-A1 to Tsuda, WO-2020000203-A1 disclose network slices with various configuration parameters but are silent to the maintainability of resources of the networks slice. Claims 12, 16, and 17 receive similar treatment as they too include ; receiving information regarding a type of network slice supported by the node, the type being determined by the base station based on the first information and the second information; notifying the user equipment of information with which the communication device can be identified, together with the information regarding the type of network slice; judging whether or not a network slice assigned according to the information received by the receiving unit is not maintainable, according to a change in a communication environment; and transmitting, in a case where the network slice is judged not maintainable, information indicating that support of the network slice is not maintainable to the base station that the nearest prior art is silent to maintaining the resources of the network slice nor the value indicating the received signal quality is greater than or equal to a first specified value and the total number of user equipments is less than or equal to a second specified value, determining that the high-speed and large-capacity communication is supported by the node.
Claims 2-4, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are allowed as they depend from an allowed claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO form PTO-892: US-20210345218-A1 to Tsuda, WO-2020080044-A1 to
Tsuda, WO-2020000203-A1 disclose network slices with various configuration parameters.
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 LOUIS SAMARA whose telephone number is (408)918-7582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6-3 PT.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights