DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 13 February 2026, having claims 27-46.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 27-36 and 40-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
4. The indicated allowability of claims 27-36 and 40-46 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Rathonyl et al. (WO 2018/030953 A1) and Seidel et al. (WO 2021/239895 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 27-29, 32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathonyl et al. (WO 2018/030953 A1) in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2021/239895 A1).
For claim 27, Rathonyl discloses a Radio Access Network (RAN) node (Fig 8, network node or base station 12) in a wireless communication network supporting a set of network slices (page 3, lines 10-13, the network node transmits configuration information a UE a part of load-balancing technique), the RAN node comprising:
a transceiver (Fig 5, transceiver 540 or Fig 6, comm. 530); a processor coupled to the transceiver (Fig 6, comm, 530 is coupled to processor 510); and a memory (Fig 6, memory 520) coupled to the processor and storing processor-executable instructions, wherein the processor is configured, when executing the processor-executable instructions, to:
generate Random Access Channel (RACH) steering information for the set of network slices, the RACH steering information comprising an indication for a User Equipment (UE) to select one of at least one available RACH configuration with a RACH configuration-specific probability and by using the transceiver, transmit the RACH steering information to the UE (page 3, lines 19-23 and page 7, lines 21-31, the network node indicates a probability value associated with each carrier in the RACH configuration information; page 13, line 37 to page 14, line 10, for each RA attempt, the UE uses the probability information to determine which carrier to use for the RACH procedure).
For claim 27, Rathonyl does not expressly disclose each of the at least one available RACH configuration comprising at least one of a network slice-specific RACH resource, a network slice-specific back-up RACH resource and a common RACH resource; and by using the transceiver, transmit the RACH steering information to the UE.
Seidel, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches each of the at least one available RACH configuration comprising at least one of a network slice-specific RACH resource (page 27, lines 18-34, slice #1 is the network slice-specific first/primary resource), a network slice-specific back-up RACH resource (page 28, lines 5-11, Slice #2 is the slice-specific back-up resource) and a common RACH resource (page 11, lines 8-9, a common RACH resource may be provided) and (page 27, lines 18-34, the UE may select slice #1 or slice #1 for the RACH procedure based on the slice-specific RACH resource configuration received from the network node). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the RACH resource selection procedure of Seidel in the communication network of Rathonyl at the time of the invention to select slice-specific resource based on the steering information indicated in the RACH configuration information.
For claim 28, Seidel discloses each of the at least one available RACH configuration causes the UE to perform at least one of: share, at least partly, the network slice-specific RACH resource of at least one network slice of the set of network slices with at least one other network slice of the set of network slices (page 17, lines 32-34 two or more slices may share a slice-specific RACH configuration);
share, at least partly, the network slice-specific back-up RACH resource of at least one network slice of the set of network slices with at least one other network slice of the set of network slices; or use, at least partly, the common RACH resource for at least one network slice of the set of network slices when a RACH fallback procedure is initiated for the at least one network slice.
For claim 29, Seidel discloses the processor is further configured to receive at least one network slice-specific RACH policy for the set of network slices from a network management entity, and wherein the processor is further configured to generate the RACH steering information based on the at least one network slice-specific RACH policy (page 31, lines 20-26, the UE may receive slice-specific RACH configuration policy information from an AMF (e.g., network mgmt. entity)).
For claim 32, Seidel discloses the processor is further configured to generate the RACH steering information based on at least one of: a load on the network slice-specific RACH resources among the set of network slices or a load on the network slice-specific back-up RACH resources among the set of network slices (page 92, lines 24-36, the slice-specific RACH resource (primary or backup) configuration information is generated by the network node based on RACH load associated with the set of network slices); a load on the common RACH resource among the set of network slices; or an expected traffic load for each network slice of the set of network slices.
For claim 34, Seidel discloses the network slice-specific RACH resource, the network slice-specific back-up RACH resource and the common RACH resource of each of the at least one available RACH configuration correspond to a two-step or four-step RACH procedure (page 43, lines 16-30, two-step or four-step RA procedure may be performed).
For claim 35, Rathonyl discloses the processor is further configured to transmit the RACH steering information to the UE via at least one of broadcast signaling and a dedicated signaling (page 12, lines 10-17, the RACH steering information is provided via broadcast signaling, preferably System Information Block (SIB)).
6. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathonyl et al. (WO 2018/030953 A1) in view of Seidel et al. (WO 2021/239895 A1) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2022/0183081 A1).
For claim 36, Rathonyl and Seidel do not expressly disclose the processor is further configured to encode the RACH steering information into a set of Unified Access Control (UAC) parameters and transmit the set of UAC parameters to the UE via the broadcast signaling.
Tao, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the processor is further configured to encode the RACH steering information into a set of Unified Access Control (UAC) parameters and transmit the set of UAC parameters to the UE via the broadcast signaling ([0110-0111] the network node in the 5G system broadcasts to the UE a set of barring control parameters that vary based on Access Identity and Access Category during the Unified Access Control (UAC) procedure, and [0189] the UE uses the parameters to perform a RACH procedure). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply UAC parameters as part of RACH steering procedure for random access in the modified system of Rathonyl and Seidel based on the teachings of Tao at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 30-31, 33, and 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. Claims 37-46 are allowed.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claims 37-39, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a combination of:
generate at least one network slice-specific Random Access Channel (RACH) policy or at least one network slice-specific resource sharing quota for the set of network slices, the at least one network slice-specific RACH policy or the at least one network slice-specific resource sharing quota assisting a Radio Access Network (RAN) node in generating RACH steering information for a User Equipment (UE), the RACH steering information comprising an indication for the UE to select one of at least one available RACH configuration with a RACH configuration-specific probability, each of the at least one available RACH configuration comprising at least one of a network slice-specific RACH resource, a network slice-specific back-up RACH resource and a common RACH resource; and
provide the at least one network slice-specific RACH policy or the at least one network slice-specific resource sharing quota to the RAN node.
For claims 40-46, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a combination of:
by using the transceiver, receive, from a Radio Access Network (RAN) node, Random Access Channel (RACH) steering information for the set of network slices, the RACH steering information comprising an indication for the UE to select one of at least one available RACH configuration with a RACH configuration-specific probability, each of the at least one available RACH configuration comprising at least one of a network slice-specific RACH resource, a network slice-specific back-up RACH resource and a common RACH resource;
by using the transceiver, receive a network slice-specific scheduling request for a network slice of the set of network slices;
select, from the at least one available RACH configuration, a RACH configuration corresponding to the network slice based on the RACH steering information; and
based on the network slice-specific scheduling request and the selected RACH configuration, execute a RACH procedure for the network slice.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471