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
The amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pp. 11 and 12 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that Spreadtrum does not teach the limitations of claims 1 and 6 because Applicant contends that Spreadtrum is allegedly “devoid of any disclosure that is equivalent or tantamount to an apparatus structure such a “[a] wireless device configured to communicate with a network node, the WD comprising processing circuity configured to: determine. . . and perform . . .” of claim 1 and “a method implemented in a wireless device . . . comprising: determining random access channel, RACH, configuration parameters for each of at least one wireless communication network slice group. . .and performing the RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice. . . .” of claim 6. Examiner disagrees.
“The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.” (Emphasis added). (See MPEP, § 2112). Spreadtrum clearly discloses that the “NW needs to inform UE the configuration of slice-specific RACH resources and UE needs to use the specific RACH resources when initiating RA process.” (See p. 1, lines 19 and 20). For a UE (i.e., a wireless device) to use (i.e., according to) the configuration of such RACH resources when initiating (i.e., perform) the RA process (i.e., RA procedure), it is necessary that a UE/wireless device include some hardware processor (i.e. processing circuitry) configured to first determine the configuration of such resources and then perform the RA procedure according to the configuration of the RACH resources. In other words, it necessarily flows from Spreadtrum’s teachings that the wireless device determines some data and performs actions according to the determined data. Additionally, for the NW (i.e., network node) to inform the UE (wireless device), the UE (wireless device) must be configured to communicate with NW (network node). Therefore, from Spreadtrum’s teachings, it also necessarily flows that disclosed wireless device is configured to communicate with the network node.
Accordingly, Spreadtrum inherently discloses the subject matter of “[a] wireless device configured to communicate with a network node, the WD comprising processing circuity configured to: determine. . . and perform . . .” of claim 1 and “a method implemented in a wireless device . . . comprising: determining random access channel, RACH, configuration parameters for each of at least one wireless communication network slice group. . .and performing the RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice. . . .” of claim 6, and similar limitations of claims 11 and 16. Applicant does not appear to refute Spreadtrum teaching the recited particulars of the determining and the performing limitations of claims 1 and 6, and similarly of claims 11 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spreadtrum Communications (“Consideration on slice based RACH configuration,” R2-2100662, January 15, 2021, (referred to herein as Spreadtrum)).
Regarding claim 1, Spreadtrum teaches “[a] wireless device, WD, configured to communicate with a network node, the WD comprising processing circuitry configured to: determine random access channel, RACH, configuration parameters for each of at least one wireless communication network slice group, the RACH configuration parameters being used to configure a random access, RA, procedure for the at least one wireless communication network slice group” (see p. 1, lines 19 and 20; p. 2, line 3 and lines 9-11; assign (i.e., determine) slice-specific RACH resources (i.e., configuration parameters) pool per slice or per slice group (i.e., for each of at least one wireless communication network slice); NW (i.e., network node) informs UE (i.e., WD) the configuration of slice-specific RACH resources and UE (i.e., the WD) needs to use the specific RACH resources when initiating RA process (i.e., the RACH configuration parameters are being used for the random access (RA) procedure)); and
Spreadtrum further teaches “perform the RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice of the at least one wireless communication network slice group according to an indication of a priority included in the RACH configuration parameters for the wireless communication network slice” (see p. 1, lines 19 and 20, p. 2, lines 16-20; by configuring proper RACH parameters like powerRampingStepHighPriority (i.e., a priority indicated by the RACH configuration parameters for the wireless communication network slice) and scalingFactorBI to UE, the method of slice-specific RACH parameter prioritization could handle the requirements of different slices, like priority and latency, and could reduce the RACH collision impact from other slice; NW (i.e., network node) informs UE (i.e., WD) the configuration of slice-specific RACH resources and UE (i.e., the WD) needs to use the specific RACH resources when initiating RA process; thus, the UE (i.e., the WD) performs the RA procedure on a network slice according to a priority indicated by the RACH configuration parameter (powerRampingStepHighPriority) for the network slice).
Regarding claim 6, it is a method claim corresponding to the device claim of claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spreadtrum in view of CMCC (“Report of [AT113-e][252][Slicing] Conclusions on slice-based RACH configuration,” R2-2101975, February 10, 2021).
Regarding claim 2, Spreadtrum teaches the device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the RACH configuration parameters are obtained from the network node in a wireless communication network slice- specific radio resource control, RRC, information element, IE” of claim 2. However, the foregoing limitation is known in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention. For example, CMCC teaches “wherein the RACH configuration parameters are obtained from the network node in a wireless communication network slice- specific radio resource control, RRC, information element, IE” (see p. 2, lines 17 and 18; slice-specific RACH resources can be configured and provided to UE in SIB and dedicated signaling; SIB is part of RRC, thus, the RACH configuration parameters are in RRC information element). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum to incorporate the teachings of CMCC to receive the RACH configuration parameters are in RRC IE. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance slice-based RACH configuration (see pp. 1-5 of CMCC).
Regarding claim 3, Spreadtrum teaches the device of claim 1, and the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches “wherein performing the RA procedure on the wireless communication network slice includes performing one of a two-step RA procedure and a four step RA procedure according to an indication included in the RACH configuration parameters” (see p. 9, lines 7-9 of CMCC; 2-step and 4-step RACH RA type selection can be based on RSRP measurement (i.e., a RACH configuration parameter); thus, whether a 2-step or a 4-step RA procedure is performed is based on RSRP measurement, which is an RACH configuration parameter RSRP measurement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum to incorporate the teachings of CMCC to perform a 2-step and a 4-step RA procedure according to a RACH configuration parameter. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance slice-based RACH configuration (see pp. 1-5 of CMCC).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches the device of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to indicate whether the WD supports RA prioritization for specific wireless communication network slices” (see p. 2, lines 16-17 of Spreadtrum and p. 2, lines 17 and 18; Spreadtrum teaches slice-specific RACH parameter prioritization and CMCC teaches dedicated signaling (i.e., indicate/indication) for slice-specific RACH resources for network slices; thus, RA prioritization is being indicated for specific network slices). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum to incorporate the teachings of CMCC to indicate RA prioritization for specific slices. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance slice-based RACH configuration (see pp. 1-5 of CMCC).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, are method claims corresponding to the device claims of claims 2, 3, and 5, respectively, that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5. Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 2, 3, and 5.
Regarding claim 11, Spreadtrum teaches “[a] network node configured to communicate with a wireless device, WD, the network node comprising: processing circuitry configured to provide random access channel, RACH, configuration parameters for each of a plurality wireless communication network slice groups, each wireless communication network slice group having at least one wireless communication network slice, the RACH configuration parameters being used to perform a random access, RA, procedure on a wireless communication network slice group” (see p. 1, lines 19 and 20; p. 2, line 3 and lines 9-11; assign (i.e., provide) slice-specific RACH resources (i.e., RACH configuration parameters) pool per slice or per slice group (i.e., each of a plurality wireless communication network slice groups, each wireless communication network slice group having at least one wireless communication network slice); NW (i.e., network node) informs UE (i.e., WD) the configuration of slice-specific RACH resources and UE (i.e., the WD) needs to use the specific RACH resources when initiating RA process (i.e., the RACH configuration parameters are being used for a random access (RA) procedure)); and
Spreadtrum does not explicitly disclose “a radio interface in communication with the processing circuitry and configured to receive a physical random access channel, PRACH, message on a wireless communication network slice according to the RACH configuration parameters for a wireless communication network slice group to which the wireless communication network slice belongs” of claim 11. However, the foregoing limitation is known in the art prior to the filing of the claimed invention. For example, CMCC teaches “a radio interface in communication with the processing circuitry and configured to receive a physical random access channel, PRACH, message on a wireless communication network slice according to the RACH configuration parameters for a wireless communication network slice group to which the wireless communication network slice belongs” (see p. 1, lines 26, and p. 5, lines 3 and 4; as part of the slice-based RACH configuration (i.e., according to the RACH configuration parameters for the slice) PRACH transmissions (i.e., PRACH message) are sent/received per slice based on the slice-based RACH configuration; thus, PRACH message is received according to the RACH configuration parameters for the slice group to which the slice belongs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum to incorporate the teachings of CMCC to receive PRACH message according to the RACH configuration parameters applied to a slice. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance slice-based RACH configuration (see pp. 1-5 of CMCC).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches the network node of claim 11, and further teaches “wherein the RACH configuration parameters include at least one of the following: an indication of a priority of an RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice of a first wireless communication network slice group relative to a priority of an RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice of a second wireless communication network slice group; an indication of a purpose or event associated with a prioritized RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice group; an indication of access identity, category or class associated with a prioritized RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice group; and an indication of a carrier or cell on which an RA procedure is prioritized” (see p. 2 lines 16, 17, and 23 of Spreadtrum; configuring proper RACH parameters like powerRampingStepHighPriority to handle prioritization requirements of different slices; therefore, the RACH parameter indicates priority of one slice relative to another slice; the slice-specific RACH parameters prioritization can be configured per slice group; thus, an indication of a priority of an RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice of a first wireless communication network slice group relative to a priority of an RA procedure on a wireless communication network slice of a second wireless communication network slice group).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches the network node of claim 11, and further teaches “wherein cell specific RACH configuration parameters are included in multiple radio resource control, RRC, information elements, IEs” (see p. 2, lines 17 and 18 of CMCC; slice-specific RACH resources can be configured and provided to UE in SIB and dedicated signaling; SIB is part of RRC, thus, the RACH configuration parameters are in RRC information element). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum to incorporate the teachings of CMCC to include the RACH configuration parameters in RRC IE. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance slice-based RACH configuration (see pp. 1-5 of CMCC).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches the network node of claim 11, and further teaches “wherein RACH configuration parameters for wireless communication network slice-based RACH procedures are applicable to 4-step RA procedures and 2-step RA procedures” (see p. 9, lines 7-9 of CMCC; 2-step and 4-step RACH RA type selection can be based on RSRP measurement (i.e., a RACH configuration parameter); thus, whether a 2-step or a 4-step RA procedure is performed is based on RSRP measurement, which is an RACH configuration parameter RSRP measurement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum to incorporate the teachings of CMCC for a 2-step and a 4-step RA procedure according to a RACH configuration parameter. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance slice-based RACH configuration (see pp. 1-5 of CMCC).
Regarding claims 16-19, they are method claims corresponding to the device claims of claims 11-14, respectively, that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 11-14. Claims 16-19 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 11-14.
Claims 4, 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spreadtrum in view of CMCC and in further view of Sivavakeesar et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0068073).
Regarding claim 4, Spreadtrum teaches the device of claim 1, and the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches “wherein performing the RA procedure on the wireless communication network slice includes performing one of a slice-based RACH procedure defined for contention based random access, CBRA, and a second wireless communication network slice-based RACH procedure” (see p. 10 of CMCC; configuring slice-specific RACH procedures (i.e., RACH procedures can be configured per slice), where the RACH procedure for one slice can be CBRA (contention based random access)). However, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC does not explicitly disclose “defined for contention free random access” of claim 4. However, the contention free random access RACH procedure is well known in the art prior to the effective filing data of the claimed invention. For example, Sivavakeesar teaches “defined for contention free random access” (see ¶¶ [0042] and [0155]; random access (RACH) procedures can be contention based or contention free (non-contention based); the RACH procedure (i.e., the contention free random access) is slice-specific). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum in view of CMCC to incorporate the teachings of Sivavakeesar to perform a slice-based CBRA RACH procedure and a slice-based contention free random access RACH procedure. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance network slicing to meet the diverse requirements of 5G NR (see ¶ [0053] of Sivavakeesar).
Regarding claim 9, it is a method claim corresponding to the device claim of claim 4 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 4. Claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC teaches the network node of claim 11, and further teaches “wherein first RACH configuration parameters for wireless communication network slice-based RACH procedures are defined for contention based random access (CBRA) procedures and second RACH configuration parameters for wireless communication network slice-based RACH procedures” (see p. 10 of CMCC; configuring slice-specific RACH procedures (i.e., RACH procedures can be configured per slice), where the RACH procedure for one slice can be CBRA (contention based random access)).
However, the combination of Spreadtrum and CMCC does not explicitly disclose “defined for contention free random access (CFRA) procedures” of claim 15. However, the contention free random access RACH procedure is well known in the art prior to the effective filing data of the claimed invention. For example, Sivavakeesar teaches “defined for contention free random access (CFRA) procedures” (see ¶¶ [0042] and [0155]; random access (RACH) procedures can be contention based or contention free (non-contention based); the RACH procedure (i.e., the contention free random access) is slice-specific). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Spreadtrum in view of CMCC to incorporate the teachings of Sivavakeesar to have a slice-based CBRA RACH procedure and a slice-based contention free random access RACH procedure. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance network slicing to meet the diverse requirements of 5G NR (see ¶ [0053] of Sivavakeesar).
Regarding claim 20, it is a method claim corresponding to the network node claim of claim 15 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 15. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights