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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 13, and 14, drawn to an apparatus for identifying a target cell for handover based on an obtained list of network slices.
Group II, claim(s) 22-29, 31, 33, and 38, drawn to an apparatus for determining a cell to be paged depending on downlink data for a user equipment and network slice information.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a network access node obtaining a list of network slices supported by at least one cell, wherein the network slices in the list are not available in all cells in a tracking area associated with the at least one cell, and identifying a cell that supports a network slice, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of prior art document D1 (WO 2019/034601 A1 (Ericsson Telefon AB L M [SE]).
As indicated in the written opinion of the International Searching Authority, this common matter is already known because it is anticipated by the disclosure of e.g. prior art document D1. In particular, document D1 discloses in step 114 of Fig. 2B (see also paragraph [0046]) a (R)AN node14 exchanging via X2 interface information of the supported and permitted S-NSSAI(s) per TA to neighboring RAN nodes, allowing the neighboring RAN nodes to assess whether a handover for a UE should be performed as X2 handover (in case all active slices are supported by the target RAN node). Therefore, said document D1 discloses a network access node (corresponding to one of the neighboring RAN nodes) obtaining a list of network slices supported by at least one cell (corresponding to the supported and permitted S-NSSAI(s) per TA received from the (R)AN node 14 via X2 interface, said supported permitted S-NSSAI(s) per TA corresponding to a filtered list of S-NSSAI(s) supported by the (R)AN node 14 - see steps 100C to 112A of Figs. 2A and 2B and corresponding passages of the description – and therefore implicitly supported by at least one cell of said ®AN node 14). Furthermore, as disclosed in paragraph [0040] (related to step 102 of Fig. 2A), the S-NSSAIs supported by the (R)AN node 14 can be configured individually per TA and therefore it is implicit that, as each (R)AN node has individually configured S-NSSAIs per TA, there is a non-uniform support of N-SSAIs throughout a TA. Thus document D1 also anticipates that the network slices in the list are non-uniformly supported in a tracking area associated with the at least one cell. Finally, as according to step 114 of Fig. 2B (see also paragraph [0046]) the neighboring RAN nodes assess whether a handover for a UE should be performed as X2 handover (in case all active slices are supported by the target RAN node), it is implicitly disclosed that the one of the neighboring RAN nodes, when considering the (R)AN node 14 as a target RAN node for handover, identifies a cell (of the (R)AN node 14) that supports a network slice (an active slice) in order to decide whether to perform an X2 handover. Therefore, the common matter is implicitly disclosed in document D1 and cannot constitute a single general inventive concept linking the claims.
During a telephone conversation with Robin O on 22 January 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-3, 5-8, and 13-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 22-29, 31, 33, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For Claim 7, “the at least one cell” should probably be corrected to ---at least one neighbor cell---.
For Claim 8, lines 13-16 are a copy of lines 9-12 and thus redundant to lines 9-12.
For Claim 14, “the at least one cell” should probably be corrected to ---at least one neighbor cell---.
For Claim 14 (last line), “the tracking area” should probably be corrected to ---the respective tracking area---.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, and 14, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ianev et al. (US 2022/0264505).
For Claim 1, Ianev teaches an apparatus for a first network access node, the apparatus comprising:
one or more processors, and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (see paragraph 143: RAN node), cause the apparatus to perform:
obtaining cell information comprising a list of network slices supported by at least one neighbour cell neighbouring a serving cell (see paragraph 118), wherein the network slices in the list are not available in all cells in a tracking area associated with the at least one neighbour cell (see paragraphs 66-67); and
identifying, using the obtained cell information, a target cell from the at least one neighbour cell that supports a network slice currently used by a user equipment, for performing a change from the serving cell to the target cell (see paragraph 118).
For Claim 2, Ianev teaches an apparatus, wherein the cell information is obtained from a network management function of the first network access node (see paragraph 118).
For Claim 5, Ianev teaches an apparatus, wherein the change from the serving cell to the target cell is performed by triggering a redirection procedure towards the user equipment (see paragraph 116, 119).
For Claim 6, Ianev teaches the apparatus, wherein the network slice is being used in a protocol data unit session between the first network access node and the user equipment (see paragraphs 91, 109, 117: PDU session).
For Claim 13, Ianev teaches the apparatus, wherein the cell information comprises cell group mapping information for the tracking area of the at least one neighbour cell (see paragraphs 66-67),
wherein the cell group mapping information maps the at least one neighbour cell to at least one group, the at least one group representing a list of slices that are non-uniformly supported in the tracking area of the respective cell (see paragraphs 66-67: TAI-1).
For Claim 14, Ianev teaches the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is caused to perform:
receiving group mapping information for a tracking area of the at least one cell (see paragraph 87, Figure 8 item 801: NSSAI information including conditional information),
wherein the group mapping information maps the respective tracking area to the at least one group, the at least one group comprising a list of network slices that are non-uniformly supported in the tracking area (see paragraphs 66-67).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 7, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US 2022/0264505) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lou et al. (US 2021/0321264).
For Claim 3, though Ianev does teach a handover step which is well known to include signaling between source and target cells (see Figure 15, paragraph 133), Ianev as applied above is not explicit as to, but Lou teaches an apparatus, wherein the apparatus is caused to perform:
receiving, from a second network access node serving the at least one neighbour cell, the cell information in a first message (see paragraphs 37-39);
wherein the apparatus is caused to perform: providing, to the second network access node, a request message identifying the target cell for a handover of the user equipment (see paragraphs 7-8).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the application was filed to include messaging as in Lou when implementing the handover step in the system of Ianev. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of employing a known protocol allowing a UE to handover within a current slice.
For Claim 7, Ianev as applied above is not explicit as to, but Lou teaches the apparatus, wherein the first message comprises an indication of the tracking area that the at least one cell is comprised in (see paragraphs 7-8, 18).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the application was filed to include messaging as in Lou when implementing the handover step in the system of Ianev. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of employing a known protocol allowing a UE to handover within a current slice.
Claim(s) 8, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US 2022/0264505) and Lou et al. (US 2021/0321264) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Mildh et al. (US 2021/0282082).
For Claim 8, Ianev further teaches the apparatus, wherein the further cell information comprises a list of network slices that are not available in all the at least one further neighbour cell (see paragraphs 66-68); and
wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
determining, using the cell information, whether the at least one neighbour cell and/or the at least one further neighbour cell supports the network slice (see paragraph 118);
selecting the at least one neighbour cell, a cell for the handover of the user equipment based on the determination (see paragraph 118);
wherein at least one of:
the second network access node serves a plurality of cells, the cell information comprising: per cell of the plurality of cells, a list of network slices that are supported by the respective cell, and not available in all cells in a tracking area of the respective cell (see paragraphs 66-68); and
the third network access node serves a plurality of cells, the further cell information comprising: per cell of the plurality of cells, a list of network slices supported by the respective cell, and non-uniformly supported in a tracking area of the respective cell (see paragraphs 66-68: the network obviously has more than two access nodes and the additional access nodes would have similar properties).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Mildh teaches the apparatus wherein the apparatus is caused to perform:
receiving, from a third network access node serving at least one further neighbour cell, further cell information in a second message (see paragraph 308);
wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
determining, using the cell information and further cell information, whether the at least one neighbour cell and/or the at least one further neighbour cell supports the network slice (see paragraphs 292, 297);
wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
selecting, between the at least one neighbour cell and the at least one further neighbour cell, a cell for the handover of the user equipment based on the determination (see paragraphs 292, 297); and
providing the request message for handover to the network access node serving the selected cell (see paragraphs 292, 297);
wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
selecting, between the at least one neighbour cell and the at least one further neighbour cell, a cell for the handover of the user equipment based on the determination (see paragraphs 292, 297); and
providing the request message for handover to the network access node serving the selected cell (see paragraphs 292, 297).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to collect slice information from additional neighbors as in Mildh when implementing the apparatus of Ianev and Lou. The motivation would be to ensure an access node has information available locally to make an optimum handover selection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fu et al. (US 2022/0346002) teaches a system in which a UE can use slice information to select a target cell. Vulgarakis Feljan et al. (US 2018/0242161) teaches a protocol for base stations to exchange slice information. Jin et al. (US 2019/0357103) teaches base stations exchanging slice information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 2/10/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466