Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. It would be of great assistance to the office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
i. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
ii. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
iii. Filing date.
iv. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
v. Title of invention.
vi. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
3. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages, paragraph and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
4. Claim interpretation: When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations doesn’t have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
Claims 1 & 11 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being clearly anticipated by Venkataraman et al (Pub No. US 2022/0377659).
Regarding claim 1, Venkataraman et al discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, a system information block (SIB) including slice information (Fig. 4: UE receive network slice information & Para. 36-39: system information block with network slice information); identifying at least one cell for a slice service for the UE among a plurality of neighboring cells based on the slice information (Para. 36 & 42 & 56 & 58: identifying cell for a slice service & Fig. 4); and camping on the at least one cell for the slice service (Para. 36-42: camping cell for the slice service & Para. 50).
Regarding claim 11, Venkataraman et al discloses user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE (Fig. 2-3) comprising: at least one processor; and memory (Fig. 1-3) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to: receive, from a base station, a system information block (SIB) including slice information (Fig. 4: UE receive network slice information & Para. 36-39: system information block with network slice information), identify at least one cell for a slice service for the UE among a plurality of neighboring cells based on the slice information (Para. 36 & 42 & 56 & 58: identifying cell for a slice service & Fig. 4), and camp on the at least one cell for the slice service (Para. 36-42: camping cell for the slice service & Para. 50).
Claim Rejection- 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-10 & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al (Pub No. US 2022/0377659) and further in view of Cheng et al (Pub No. 2024/0015798).
Regarding claim 2 & 12, Venkataraman et al is silent regarding the slice information includes information on a slice list indicating the at least one cell supporting a network slices access stratum (AS) group (NSAG) identity (ID) corresponding to the slice service.
Cheng et al discloses the slice information includes information on a slice list indicating the at least one cell supporting a network slices access stratum (AS) group (NSAG) identity (ID) corresponding to the slice service (Para. 186: slices access stratum group identity & Para. 131).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use group identity in the wireless communication system for robust signal exchange between base station and mobile devices.
Regarding claim 3 & 13, Venkataraman et al discloses transmitting, to a network via the base station, a measurement report including information on the at least one cell identified based on the information on the slice list (Para. 56: Cell ID).
Regarding claim 4 & 14, Venkataraman et al discloses receiving, from the base station, a message for a handover of the UE to the at least one cell, wherein, in case that the at least one cell corresponds to a secondary cell group (SCG), the at least one cell is added to a SCG list (Para. 54 & 59: UE handover & 39-42: cell select and list).
Regarding claim 5 & 15, Note the rejection set forth above, Venkataraman et al discloses receiving, from a network via the base station, information on one or more redirection frequencies, wherein the plurality of neighboring cells belong to the one or more redirection frequencies (Para. 17-18: Allocation of multiple frequency ranges and cell with frequency ranges).
Regarding claim 6 & 16, Note the rejection set forth above, Venkataraman et al discloses receiving, from a network via the base station, information on a plurality of frequencies within a first radio access technology (RAT), wherein the plurality of neighboring cells belong to the plurality of frequencies (Para. 17-18: Allocation of multiple frequency ranges and cell with frequency ranges) & (Para. 24-25).
Regarding claim 7 & 17, Note the rejection set forth above, Venkataraman et al discloses a source cell of the UE belongs to a second RAT, wherein the at least one cell corresponding to a target cell belongs to the first RAT (Para. 17-18 & Para. 24-25 & 53).
Venkataraman et al is silent regarding a source cell does not support a network slices access stratum (AS) group (NSAG) identity (ID).
Cheng et al discloses a source cell does not support a network slices access stratum (AS) group (NSAG) identity (ID) (Para. 186: slices access stratum group identity & Para. 131).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to use group identity in the wireless communication system for robust signal exchange between base station and mobile devices.
Regarding claim 8 & 18, Venkataraman is silent regarding in case that the at least one cell is a secondary cell, a SCG addition of the secondary cell is performed, and wherein the UE enters dual connectivity (DC) mode based on the SCG addition.
Cheng et al in case that the at least one cell is a secondary cell, a SCG addition of the secondary cell is performed, and wherein the UE enters dual connectivity (DC) mode based on the SCG addition (Fig. 2-3 & Para. 45 & 53: UE move from serving cell to another cell and may have multiple cell connection).
At the time of filling, it would have been obvious to better communicating cell in the wireless communication system for robust signal exchange between base station and mobile devices.
Regarding claim 9 & 19, Note the rejection set forth above, Venkataraman et al discloses transmitting, to a network via the base station, a service request for protocol data unit (PDU) session establishment for the slice service (Para. 33 & 26).
Regarding claim 10 & 20, Note the rejection set forth above, Venkataraman et al discloses identifying the at least one cell supporting a radio access network (RAN) slice among the plurality of neighboring cells; and camping on the at least one cell for the slice service (Para. 28 & 36: Network slice and cell selection and cell camp on).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD K TALUKDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur from 10 am to 6 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, Wesley Kim can be reached on 571-272-7867. 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.
/MD K TALUKDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648