DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant's amendment and request for
reconsideration filed on July 06, 2026.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and 35 U.C. 103.
Applicant’s argument regarding the combination of Chen and Timner under 35 U.S.C. §103 for rejecting previous claim 2, and currently reflected in claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, with respect to Applicant’s argument (see pp. 8 of Applicant’s remarks): “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references are silent on the recited active control of determining different individual frequency priorities for different network slices in response to a duplication of their slice priorities”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Timner clearly teaches “determining different individual frequency priorities for different network slices in response to a duplication of their slice priorities”, see ¶0075, i.e., “if there are several slices with same slice priority, frequencies supporting several of them get higher priority than a frequency only supporting one.”
Secondly, with respect to Applicant’s argument (see pp. 9): “Timner’s output is a ‘Merged Frequency score’…Timner never determines individual slice-specific frequency priorities”, Applicant’s claim however does not require a “slice-specific frequency priority”. In other words, Applicant’s claim does not require that the “first frequency priority” is only configured for the first network slice and/or the “second frequency priority” is only configured for “the second network slice”. Rather, as reflected in claim 1, in addition to the first network slice, the first frequency priority could broadly also be configured for the second network slice, and/or the second frequency priority, in addition to the second network slice, could also broadly be configured for the first network slice.
Thirdly, with respect to Applicant’s “Technical Infeasibility” argument (see pp. 10), Chen is evidence against the technical infeasibility argument, as Chen already describes the RAN/base station receiving similar UE information for deriving a frequency priority list for each network slice (see abstract, Fig. 3, ref. 335 and ¶0049).
Finally, with respect to Applicant’s arguments on teaching away (see pp. 10-11), as noted above, Chen already teaches the RAN/base station deriving a frequency priority list for each network slice. Amending the process in Chen to consider frequency priorities when two slices have the same priority, is a natural extension of the processes that Chen’s base station/RAN is already performing. Moreover, despite Timner’s statement regarding “minimal impact on the legacy [camping] procedures” (see ¶0054), a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would also readily appreciate that performing Timner’s reselection process at the base station/RAN would save user equipment (UE) resources for performing the process itself. This would therefore improve battery life at the UE or at least allow UE resources to be used for other processes, which a PHOSITA could reasonably conclude is more important than maintaining legacy procedures, especially for UEs that are resource constrained.
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0303884)(“Chen”), in view of Timner et al. (US 2025/0294421)(“Timner”).
As per claim 1, Chen teaches a cell reselection method in a mobile communication system, the cell reselection method comprising:
acquiring, by a control apparatus (i.e., core network 130), network slice information (i.e., derives allowed S-NSSAI, see ¶0046);
transmitting, by the control apparatus, the network slice information to a base station (i.e., RAN 120, see ¶0048);
by the base station, determining frequency priorities for network slices by using the network slice information (see ¶0049, i.e., “RAN derives dedicated frequency priority on a per slice basis”), and transmitting the determined frequency priorities for the network slices to a user equipment Id.; and
reselecting, by the user equipment (i.e., UE 110), a cell that provides the network slices, by using the frequency priorities for the network slice (see ¶0051, and Fig. 3, ref. 345, i.e., “the UE may initiate cell reselection in accordance with the dedicated priority information”),
wherein the network slices comprises a first network slice and a second network slice (i.e., “one or more network slices”, see ¶0039, and “network slices”, see ¶0049).
Chen, however, fails to teach the determining the frequency priorities comprises:
determining, by the base station, that a slice priority of the first network slice is the same as a slice priority of the second network slice based on the network slice information; and
determining, by the base station, a first frequency priority for the first network slice and a second frequency priority for the second network slice so that the first frequency priority is different from the second frequency priority, in response to the slice priority of the first network slice being the same as the slice priority of the second network slice.
Nevertheless, in the same art of slice priority frequency selection, Timner teaches a method for determining, a first frequency priority for the first network slice and a second frequency priority for a second network slice so that the first frequency priority is different from the second frequency priority, in response to determining the slice priority of the first network slice is the same as the slice priority of the second network slice (see ¶0076 “…if there are several slices with same slice priority, frequencies supporting several of them get higher priority than a frequency only supporting one”. In other words, a first frequency priority may have a higher priority for a first network slice, while a second frequency priority, supporting only a second network slice, may have a lower frequency priority)(also see corresponding ¶0037, pp. 7, of provisional application 63/256869, with a filing date of 10/18/2021).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Chen with the reselection processes in Timner. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to configure frequency priorities in Chen to reflect priorities for network slices, including multiple slices that share the same priority level.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are allowed over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
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 Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, James Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441
Prosecution Insights