DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 26 May 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13-14, and 43-52 are pending in this application.
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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, it is unclear what is meant by “determining, using the cell information and further cell information, at least one of the at least one neighbour cell or the at least one further neighbour cell supports the network slice”. This should probably be amended to --- determining, using the cell information and further cell information, whether at least one of the at least one neighbour cell or the at least one further neighbour cell supports the network slice---.
For Claim 8, it is unclear what is meant by “selecting, from among the at least one of the at least one neighbour cell the at least one further neighbour cell”. This should probably be amended to --- selecting, from among the at least one of the at least one neighbour cell and the at least one further neighbour cell---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 14, 43, 44, 46, 47, and 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US 2022/0264505) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2024/0163757).
For Claims 1, 43, and 52, Ianev teaches an apparatus for a first network access node, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor one or more processors, and at least one memory storing instructions of a first network access node (see paragraph 143: RAN node), a method, and a non-volatile memory medium storing instructions which, when executed by at least one processor of an apparatus (see paragraphs 143, 148: RAN node, memory);
the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, causing the apparatus to perform:
obtaining cell information comprising network slices supported by at least one neighbour cell neighbouring a serving cell serving a user equipment (see paragraph 118, 114, 127), wherein network slices identified 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 cell information, from among the at least one neighbour cell that supports a network slice currently used by the user equipment, a target cell for performing a change from the serving cell to the target cell for serving the user equipment (see paragraph 118, 114, 127).
Ianev as applied above is not explicit as to, but Zhao teaches a list of identifiers of network slices supported by at least one neighbor cell (see paragraphs 8, 60).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include identifiers as in Zhao when providing slice information as in Ianev. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring the serving node would be able to identify a target cell supporting the necessary network slice.
For Claims 2 and 44, Ianev further teaches the apparatus, wherein the cell information is obtained from a network management function of the first network access node (see paragraph 118).
For Claims 5 and 46, Ianev further teaches the apparatus, wherein the change from the serving cell to the target cell for serving the user equipment is performed by triggering a redirection procedure towards the user equipment (see paragraph 116, 119).
For Claims 6 and 47, Ianev further 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 Claims 13 and 50, Ianev further 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), and
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 network slices that are non-uniformly supported in the tracking area of the respective cell (see paragraphs 66-67: TAI-1).
For Claims 14 and 51, Ianev further teaches the apparatus, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform:
receiving group mapping information for a respective tracking area of the at least one neighbour 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 respective tracking area (see paragraphs 66-67).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 45, and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ianev et al. (US 2022/0264505) and Zhao et al. (US 2024/0163757) as applied to claims 1 and 43 above, and further in view of Lou et al. (US 2021/0321264).
For Claims 3 and 45, though Ianev does teach a handover step which is well known to include signaling between source and target cells (see Figure 15, paragraph 133), the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Lou teaches the apparatus, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus 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); and
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 Claims 7 and 48, the references as applied above are 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 neighbour 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 and 49, 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), Zhao et al. (US 2024/0163757), and Lou et al. (US 2021/0321264) as applied to claims 1, 3, 43, and 45 above, and further in view of Mildh et al. (US 2021/0282082).
For Claims 8 and 49, Ianev as modified by Zhao above further teaches the apparatus, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform:
wherein the further cell information comprises a list of identifiers of network slices that are not available in all the at least one further neighbour cell (see paragraphs 66-68);
determining, using the cell information, at least one of the at least one neighbour cell or the at least one further neighbour cell supports the network slice (see paragraph 118, 114, 127); and
selecting, from among the at least one of the at least one neighbour cell, the target cell for the handover of the user equipment based on the determining (see paragraph 118, 114, 127);
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 identifiers 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 identifiers of 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
receiving, from a third network access node serving at least one further neighbour cell, further cell information in a second message (see paragraph 308);
determining, using the cell information and further cell information, at least one of the at least one neighbour cell or the at least one further neighbour cell supports the network slice (see paragraphs 292, 297);
selecting, from among the at least one of the at least one neighbour cell the at least one further neighbour cell, the target cell for the handover of the user equipment based on the determining (see paragraphs 292, 297); and
providing the request message for handover to the network access node serving the target cell selected for the handover (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.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 26 May 2026 has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments. The amendments have resulted in a new rejection under 35 USC 112.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections over prior art have been fully considered, but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
With regards to teachings of Ianev, the cited portions of Ianev do show identifying a neighbor cell that supports a network slice currently used by a UE as a target cell. The claim does not require that the user equipment stay with the same network slice upon handover.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang (US 2021/0314827) teaches a source base station selecting a target base station based on the network slice to be accessed by the UE. Wei et al. (US 2020/0267639) teaches a target base station providing slice support information on request.
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 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 6/22/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights